Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL

Order for consideration read.

To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Road Upgrading

Mr. Tom Clarke: When is the forecast completion of the upgrading of the A8 from Baillieston to Newhouse and the M73 serving Gartcosh. [87514]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): The proposal to upgrade the A8 between Baillieston and Newhouse is one of the schemes being considered in the strategic review of trunk roads. Responsibility for completing the review transfers, along with other trunk road matters, to the Scottish Parliament on 1 July. The scheme at Gartcosh on the M73 will be completed in September.

Mr. Clarke: My constituents and I are extremely pleased at my right hon. Friend's confirmation of those necessary roadworks. Those of us who have seen the horrors of congestion and the burdens of bottlenecks and who recognise the need for sustainable infrastructure to encourage industrial investment welcome what my right hon. Friend has said. May I take this opportunity to ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that no decision has been taken about charges and that that will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament, which will no doubt take on board in its consultations the views of road users, local authorities and those who want decongestion on roads within the excellence of a new environment?

Dr. Reid: On the upgrade between Baillieston and Newhouse, my right hon. Friend will know that two alternatives are under review. One is an on-line upgrade and one an off-line alternative. Both would involve the upgrading of that section of the A8 to motorway status. On the road charging proposals, I can confirm what my right hon. Friend said. No decision has been reached

by the Scottish Parliament on that matter. Of course, there will be widespread consultation before it decides on the way forward.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's comments about road tolling, does he agree that it would have been far better, if he was seeking to make friends and influence people, if the question of road tolling charges had been left until after the transfer of powers? The consequence of the announcement of the policy has been to cause great resentment in Scotland and to give the impression that the Scottish Executive is acting as a little Sir Echo of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

Dr. Reid: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. In the spirit of generosity that normally marks these occasions, I also welcome his boss, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who, if my memory serves me correctly, was the father and mother of road charging—the man who invented road charging and introduced it in a Green Paper. I am sorry that he happens to be sitting on the Front Bench to be embarrassed by his colleague's attack on such charging.
I note what the hon. Gentleman says about congestion charging, but I am surprised that he has not been watching the debates in the House in the past year. It is not true that the Scottish Parliament may be the first to consider road charging. In fact, road charging powers are already being considered in the House as part of the Greater London Authority Bill. Therefore, I am afraid that by taking any opportunity to attack devolution from his side of the fence, he is perpetrating the same myth as those on the Scottish National party Benches who take every opportunity to attack devolution. Both parties are wrong. Road charging is being considered as part of the GLA Bill, and no decision has yet been taken in Scotland.

Glasgow (Competitiveness)

2. Mr. David Marshall: What plans there are to introduce measures to improve the competitive position of the Glasgow metropolitan area; and if he will make a statement. [87515]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): We have introduced a number of measures to improve the competitiveness of Glasgow. We are supporting the Glasgow Alliance by providing running costs of £700,000 per annum and have drawn up a wide-ranging strategy for the city. From I July, these will be matters for the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that there are more than 1,000 acres of derelict land in the city of Glasgow, a great deal of which is in the east and south-east of the city, in particular in my constituency? Does he agree that that land could hold the key to the future prosperity and competitiveness of that great city and that the best way to develop it would be to complete the last six miles of the M74 motorway from Tollcross to the Kingston bridge? Will he therefore agree to recommend that as an urgent priority to the appropriate people in the new Scottish Parliament, who will make decisions on such issues after 1 July?

Mr. Macdonald: As my hon. Friend knows, the M74 is being considered as part of the roads review.


An important criterion for assessing roads within that review is, of course, economic impact. That is being looked at hard, not merely by officials but by Ministers in the new Scottish Executive. My hon. Friend is right to say that it is important to use derelict land to maximise economic development; and that is an important task for the Glasgow Alliance, of which my hon. Friend is a notable member.

Rail Freight

Ms Rachel Squire: What plans he has to encourage the increased carriage of freight by rail in Scotland. [87516]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): The Government have committed £18.3 million for the freight facilities grant scheme in Scotland over the next three years. That scheme provides capital grants to assist companies to take freight off the roads and on to rail.
From 1 July, Scottish Ministers will assume responsibility for that scheme and also for the related track access grant scheme, which provides revenue support.

Ms Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the previous Conservative Government failed miserably to develop rail freight, despite its clear advantages for the environment, for employment and for industry? Will he tell us a little more about the progress that has been made on the freight facilities grant? Will he consider the future use of that grant to develop combined rail and sea freight facilities on short sea routes from an area such as Rosyth?

Dr. Reid: I agree with my hon. Friend that the previous Government's record on freight was shameful. We saw 40 years of decline in the rail freight industry. The House will welcome the news that not only have we reversed that decline with a 12 per cent. increase in rail freight last year, but that this year we are heading for a 16 per cent. increase. That is good for the environment, good for the economy, good for the reduction of congestion and good for transport in general.
As for the freight facilities grant scheme, I confirm that we intend to extend the facilities and the financial support not only to rail freight but to short sea, coastal shipping. That will be done as soon as there is a legislative opportunity.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government are now reviewing their integrated policies—all of them, including the dreadful bus lanes that are respected by every motorist in the country apart from the Prime Minister? On freight, will he confirm that the Government will not be using the stick to clobber freight carriers, who have already been heavily penalised by the Government with the most expensive diesel almost anywhere in the world, or certainly in Europe? Will the Government encourage people to use the railways, but not by using the stick? Does the Secretary of State realise that a higher diesel price does not necessarily mean that people will transfer from road to rail? It will simply put British freight operators out of business in this country.

Dr. Reid: I think that the hon. Gentleman has a bit of a cheek. If 85 per cent. of the current cost of diesel

is taxation, 79 per cent. of that amount was inherited from the Conservative Government, whom he supported year after year. The Conservatives introduced the fuel duty escalator on diesel, and maintained and increased it. The Conservative party's green manifesto, published just before the last election, stated that the escalator should be increased and extended even further than the Labour Government want to do. To try to make cheap, populist points by reversing everything introduced by the Conservatives during the past 10 years does no credit to the hon. Gentleman or his party.

Mr. Michael Connarty: The Secretary of State lives in Scotland and, unlike Members sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, knows what goes on there. He will be aware that there is a major rail freight terminal at Grangemouth. Does he share the dismay of the rest of Scotland that companies such as Shell, BP and others have stopped using the Bishopriggs terminal and the Fort William transport depot for rail transport for oil? They are now unnecessarily running lorries throughout Scotland.
Will the Secretary of State give a commitment to the House that he will work with the Scottish Parliament so that companies such as BP, whose aspiration is to make more use of rail freight to ship petrochemical products, and Mitchells of Grangemouth, which wants to set up a major road to rail terminal at Grangemouth, can get heavy freight traffic off the roads? That will make the roads less congested; and rail can be used, which is most efficient for bulk movement.

Dr. Reid: Yes, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that I will work in partnership with the Scottish Parliament in the devolution settlement. I believe that that will be good for Scotland and for the Scottish people. Equally important, it will be good for England; it will strengthen our unity through the recognition of the diversity of this United Kingdom.
I also confirm that I shall be willing to encourage and to work with any major company that wants to reduce congestion on the roads by taking advantage of the generous rail freight schemes that we have introduced. For instance, only yesterday, Safeway introduced a scheme to carry its freight between Inverness and Glasgow that will take about 5,000 lorries off the roads this year—largely assisted by £580,000 from the Government.

Mr. Michael Moore: The Secretary of State will be aware of the Scottish Office working party report on the future of the borders economy, especially the strong recommendations regarding the reopening of the Waverley line and the issue of rail freight raised therein. Will he confirm that he is, in principle, in favour of reopening that line through the Scottish borders and into England? Will he also confirm his commitment to work with United Kingdom Ministers to ensure that the reopening of the line is a priority for the whole Government?

Dr. Reid: As the hon. Gentleman might know, not only have we given support to an alternative study of that case but we have actually financed it. That we have given such financial support shows that we have an open mind on that question. It would be wrong to prejudge the outcome


of the study that we are financing, but the fact that we support it demonstrates that our mind is not closed on the subject.

Mr. Russell Brown: If Scotland's railways are to expand and thrive, they will require investment and effective regulation. Will my right hon. Friend assure the people of Scotland that he, in his capacity as Secretary of State, will put pressure on the United Kingdom Government and the railway regulators to ensure that we do all in our power from this place to put our transport system on the right track?

Dr. Reid: There is common agreement across the country that we need to concentrate minds, especially that of Railtrack, on ensuring that there is adequate and commensurate investment in rail infrastructure, not only in the Scottish rail system but throughout the United Kingdom rail system. However, it would be churlish not to acknowledge that we in Scotland are comparatively well served in terms of our railway system. In addition, ScotRail consistently comes at the head of the league in terms of performance and other criteria by which we judge the railways, and it is right to put that on the record.

Health

Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received about health in Scotland. [87517]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): There are frequent representations about a wide range of matters relating to health in Scotland, including the Government's achievement in abolishing the internal market in the national health service, creating the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS, and cutting waiting lists to well below the level that we inherited in 1997.

Mr. Amess: In the light of that surprising reply, is the Minister not aware that many people in England are desperately worried that their relatives in Scotland are not able to receive medical treatment? Why can people not even get on to a waiting list? Why is there now a waiting list to get on to a waiting list to get on to a waiting list? Why have the Government thrown so much money at the waiting list initiative, when the real problem is waiting times for treatment?

Mr. Macdonald: We are investing money in cutting waiting lists because that is what we promised to do at the last election. We have spent £44.5 million on reducing waiting lists: hospital waiting lists have now fallen for the last four quarters in a row and now stand at about 70,000, compared with 84,000 at the time of the last election.

Miss Anne Begg: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in contrast to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), waiting lists in Aberdeen have fallen by a record number? I believe that, according to the most recent figures, the fall is the largest in Scotland. Will my hon. Friend also confirm that the Government and the new Scottish Executive will continue to strive to make waiting lists as short as possible?

Mr. Macdonald: I can confirm that absolutely. The waiting list is now down to the target that we had set ourselves to meet three years hence—we have hit the target three years early. There are a number of long-term projects still in place that are designed to ensure that that reduction in waiting lists, once achieved, is sustained into the longer term.

Mr. John Bercow: Why does the Minister not swallow his pride and apologise unreservedly to the House for the fact that there are now 164 fewer nurses in Scotland than there were three years ago?

Mr. Macdonald: We are spending more money on the NHS in Scotland. We have reduced bureaucracy and red tape and we have reduced the number of NHS trusts in Scotland. The money that we have saved has been recycled back into front-line NHS services in Scotland, which is why we have achieved our target of reducing waiting lists as well.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does my hon. Friend agree that poverty is a major cause of ill health and that it is therefore wrong that, for many years, Glasgow's business rates were spent outside the city in areas that needed them less? Does my hon. Friend join me in hoping that the Scottish Parliament will stop that unfair redistribution of wealth?

Mr. Macdonald: An important target for the Scottish Executive—as it has been for the Scottish Office for the past two years—is to reduce inequalities in health throughout Scotland. That is why we have launched the social inclusion programme across Scotland and why we are co-ordinating programmes to tackle social exclusion not just across Scotland generally but in several specific communities where that problem is most serious.

NUS

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: When he last met representatives of the NUS in Scotland. [87518]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): I have not met representatives of the National Union of Students in Scotland recently. In view of the transfer of powers on 1 July, it might be more appropriate if representatives of the Scottish Executive meet them in future.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Given that the number of school leavers from England, Wales and Northern Ireland applying to Scottish universities has clearly decreased, and given that the majority of Scottish people voted in the recent election for parties that are clearly committed to changing the rules on tuition fees, will the Minister's party support a free vote in the Scottish Parliament on the tuition fees issue following the independent inquiry? Will the Government in London respect the results of that free vote?

Dr. Reid: The voting procedures of any party in the Scottish Parliament are a matter for that party. That gives a laxity and a freedom to individuals in those parties, which is precisely why the hon. Gentleman's Tory colleagues in the Scottish Parliament are supporting


proportional representation to the hilt. I assume that the hon. Gentleman supports the right of his Tory colleagues to do so.
I have made our position on tuition fees clear. Unlike the Conservatives, we want a massive expansion of higher and further education that will be funded. In order to achieve that, we think it is reasonable that those who have an above-average income—that is, more than £18,000 a year—should make some contribution. It is a fact that more than 70 per cent. of those in further education in Scotland pay, and will pay, no tuition fees. It is a fact that more than 50 per cent. of applicants to Scottish universities this year will pay no tuition fees. It is also a fact that Scotland has the highest attendance rates in the country for higher and further education.
The Government intend to ensure that we extend to a generation of young people the opportunities that were denied to those of the same economic and social backgrounds in the past. That is the socially just and decent thing to do. [Interruption.] That is the Government's position. The Scottish Parliament, as a devolved body, is entitled to take a different view if it so wishes. The Administration in Scotland—the partnership that controls the Scottish Parliament—have decided that they will review the matter. A decision will be taken and the obligation will be on the Scottish Parliament to explain to Scottish people where the money will come from if it decides to find a funding alternative to tuition fees. That is how devolution works, and I am afraid that—however uncomfortable it may be for the hon. Gentleman—that is the devolution settlement that is supported by the vast majority of people in Scotland.

Ms Sandra Osborne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if parties in the Scottish Parliament decide to abolish tuition fees, it is highly likely that the money will have to come from other areas of education, much to the detriment of the children of Scotland?

Dr. Reid: The Scottish Parliament, like this Parliament, works within financial guidelines. If the Parliament in Scotland decides—as it is entitled to do—that it has greater priorities or different priorities from those of this Parliament and allocates money in that direction, it must obtain that funding from elsewhere. That is the nature of devolution and the right of the Scottish Parliament. The Parliament also has the responsibility to explain those decisions to the people of Scotland who elect its Members. That is what Scottish Members of Parliament do here for our reserved matters, and Members of the Scottish Parliament will explain decisions on matters that have been devolved to that Parliament.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: First, I must thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind greeting to me. To return to tuition fees and the question asked by the hon. Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne), what provision has the right hon. Gentleman made, or might he consider making, for the possibility that the commission of inquiry will decide that tuition fees in Scotland should be abolished, particularly in view of the fact that the hon. Lady clearly considers that Scotland has been financially hamstrung by the Government's decision to abolish those tuition fees before devolution took place?

Dr. Reid: The provision that is made for the Scottish Parliament's expenditure priorities is in the block grant.

If the Scottish Parliament decides—this is the essence of devolution—that it wants to spend more money on a certain area, in contradistinction to what we are doing here, it must explain that it is taking that money from another area. That is a simple concept and I should have thought that, even in the early days of his tenure in office, the hon. Gentleman would be able to grasp it—it is called devolution.

Highlands and Islands Convention

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: What plans he has for the participation by Scottish Office Ministers in the Highlands and Islands convention. [87519]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): From 1 July, decisions on the future of the convention, its membership and structure will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament and Administration.

Mrs. Ewing: That is a very interesting reply. Is the Minister saying that the Scottish Executive will be able to lead on the recommendations and possible legislation emerging from the Highlands and Islands convention in spheres such as fishing, agriculture, tourism and the environment, which all affect employment in the highlands and islands? Does that mean that there will be no interference whatsoever from the Scottish Office?

Mr. Macdonald: What I mean is that it is up to the Scottish Parliament and the Executive to organise the convention in whatever format it sees fit. Obviously, there will need to be changes to the existing format because of the existence of Members of the Scottish Parliament and a different arrangement for the participation of MEPs. All those matters will have to be considered. Many reserved matters impact on the highlands and islands, and the convention will no doubt want to discuss them. I greatly enjoyed my time with the convention, and if it wants to issue an invitation to me I will be happy to accept it.

Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the UK Government will continue to take a great interest in matters relating to the highlands and islands, because many aspects of the reserved powers—in fact, all the areas covered by the convention—will be absolutely crucial to the people of the highlands and islands?

Mr. Macdonald: I can confirm that many issues that were discussed at previous meetings of the convention are now reserved powers: for example, general issues of trade and industry. Their impact on the highlands and islands will be an important subject of discussion for the convention participants. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, who is responsible for business and industry, attended previous meetings of the convention. I hope that Ministers from the UK Government will continue to have such a role, but it is entirely for the convention to decide that and to issue invitations for people to join.

Scottish Parliament (Elections)

Dr. Julian Lewis: What plans he has to review the methods for electing Members of the Scottish Parliament. [87520]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): I have no plans to review the methods for electing Members of the Scottish Parliament.

Dr. Lewis: Well, I am surprised by the Secretary of State's response. The Conservatives are honest enough and principled enough—[Interruption.]—to say that we are opposed to proportional representation even though it gives us seats in Scotland that we would not otherwise have. Would the Secretary of State have liked an outcome whereby his party could have had a decisive win in the Scottish elections, or does he honestly prefer the outcome that he got—a hung Parliament, in which the Liberal Democrats, who came fourth in terms of votes, have a permanent place on the Executive?

Dr. Reid: I am not sure whether I heard all the hon. Gentleman's question due to the furore and ribaldry that followed the use of the words "Conservative" and "principled" consecutively. I think that the thrust of his question was how I would judge the merits of a system. I would do so by considering whether it best served the interests not of my or any other political party, but of the people of Scotland. I take the same view in the United Kingdom. I have made my view known before. No electoral system, as an absolute, is intrinsically better or worse than any other.
The present system was chosen because there was a consensus in Scotland among the parties and across a wide range of opinion in support of it. That is a good enough reason for supporting the system. I am naturally disappointed that the system did not throw up an overwhelming Labour victory but point out that, even though the Labour party knew that it would lose seats, it was morally courageous enough to support such a system because it commanded a consensus across Scottish opinion. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we received the biggest vote, have the largest number of Members of the Scottish Parliament and are leading the Administration in Scotland, as we are leading the United Kingdom Government.

Mr. James Wray: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. The electoral system chosen for Scotland has been a negation of democracy. Any system that can bring the Tories back from oblivion and give them 18 seats must be examined. The system that resulted in hundreds of thousands of Labour votes in a second vote going nowhere, and the allocation of seats through the back door to a list of people who stood under first past the post has created a cancer in every constituency in Scotland. I hope that we change it at the next election.

Dr. Reid: I am sure that my hon. Friend's considered approach to this matter will have been noted by a range of observers. We have made it absolutely plain that, after consideration, any decision to change the system in this

House would be a decision of the electorate of this country through a referendum. That is the ultimate litmus test of a satisfactory system.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Having achieved a fairer electoral system in Scotland that is based on proportionality, will the Secretary of State today undertake vigorously to oppose any reduction in the number of MSPs when or if the boundary commission recommends fewer Scottish Members of Parliament in Westminster?

Dr. Reid: I cannot give the hon. Lady such an undertaking for two reasons. First, to issue the boundary commission with instructions before it has studied the matter would be to oppose it before it reached a decision and would thus be entirely unsatisfactory. Secondly, if I gave such an undertaking, it would be a complete breach of legislation that has already gone through this House.

Mr. Frank Doran: As a supporter of proportional representation—such a voice should be heard on the Government Benches—[Interruption.] I hope that the next part of my question receives a more enthusiastic response. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the worst effect of coalition government is that parties must work harder to explain their policies not only to each other but to the outside world? In the Scottish Parliament, does he think that a much more important coalition than that between the Labour and Liberal parties is the principled one between the Scottish National party and the Conservatives in opposition?

Dr. Reid: I am not sure whether that coalition was a mariage de convenance or a shotgun marriage, although I have noticed the increasing coincidence in Tory and SNP voting in Scotland. That should not surprise us because, after all, they both end up where they started: opposing devolution. For some years, they have attempted a pincer movement by which they would defy the will of the Scottish people who wanted a devolved Parliament. I assure my hon. Friend—I am sure that I speak for all Scottish Members of Parliament—that we will work as hard as we can here to fulfil the wish of the Scottish people, which is not only to have a Scottish Parliament with responsibility for distinctly Scottish affairs but to play a full part in the United Kingdom Parliament, along with our partners from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Ministerial Responsibilities

Mr. Eric Forth: If he will make a statement on the role and responsibilities of Ministers in the Scottish Office after 1 July. [87521]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): Ministers will continue to have the role of representing Scottish interests across the range of matters that are reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament, as well as assisting in relationships between the British Government and the Scottish Executive, and between the two Parliaments.

Mr. Forth: Given that the answer to virtually every question on the Order Paper this afternoon so far has been,


"Not me, guv—it's a matter for the Scottish Parliament", and given also that the Parliament already seems to have a propensity to spend vast sums of taxpayers' money on buildings, salaries, assistants and expenses, why does not the Secretary of State give the taxpayer a break? Why does he not give a pledge now to reduce significantly the size of his Department and the number of Ministers and officials in it, in order at least to get his bureaucracy off the taxpayer's back, even while the Scottish Parliament is increasing its bureaucracy?

Dr. Reid: I could have given the right hon. Gentleman a list of matters on which we have an important role in representing the Scottish people, but I am sure that it would have bored him.

Mr. Forth: It would not.

Dr. Reid: In which case, I shall start. Please stop me, Madam Speaker, when you feel that I have gone on too long. We will have the function of representing the Scottish people within the UK on fiscal matters, economic and monetary policy, taxation, social security benefits, occupational pensions, personal pensions, exchange rates, financial services, banking and insurance—shall I continue? The list also includes the designation of assisted areas and industrial assistance throughout the United Kingdom, international relations including the European Union, broadcasting, the Post Office, and electricity generation, transmission, distribution and supply. Is that enough, Madam Speaker? I shall continue the next time the right hon. Gentleman has a question.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: May I ask my right hon. Friend about one of the matters for which he has responsibility—the allocation of structural funds within Scotland as part of the UK settlement that was so successful for the highlands as a consequence of the Prime Minister's intervention? Can my right hon. Friend tell us his thinking about the safety net arrangements, particularly for areas such as that of Clackmannanshire council in my constituency? The council is concerned about the fact that it is not eligible for the first level of award under objective 2, although it would be eligible under the safety net. Would that be part of a UK settlement, or will there be a specific Scottish settlement, or has the matter not yet been resolved?

Dr. Reid: Discussions are continuing as regards the assisted areas map and objective 2 status. As my hon. Friend probably knows, the Prime Minister was extremely successful in winning a safety net at the United Kingdom level—the member state level—at the Berlin summit. We start from more difficult circumstances in making a case for assisted areas and objective 2 status, because the last time the assessment was made, under a Tory Government, we were in the middle of the most serious recession for a long, long time, with extremely high levels of unemployment. We have been much more successful under the Labour Government. Nevertheless, I shall pay close attention to the points that my hon. Friend raised about his area.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State confirm that after 1 July he will continue to have jurisdiction over the setting of

boundaries between Scotland and England in terms of territorial waters off the coast of the United Kingdom? Is the Secretary of State aware of the anger and consternation among the fishing communities around Berwickshire about the changes that were brought in by the recent Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999? Would he support legislative proposals in the House in the near future to reconsider the parts of that order that transferred the Berwickshire bank from Scottish jurisdiction to English jurisdiction?

Dr. Reid: Everyone would agree that when two Parliaments instead of one sovereign Parliament have jurisdiction—we also have a devolved Parliament now—we have to find the fairest way of settling the distribution of areas of jurisdiction between them. The way that was chosen in this case was the method most commonly accepted by international standards for fixing a line over the jurisdiction of territorial waters.
In respect of whether that has been a fair settlement, I remind the hon. Gentleman that two thirds of British territorial waters have been passed to the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament, that no one outside those waters who is a Scottish fisherman has had his rights in any way diminished and that there is a precedent for where someone is taken to court. Previously, if an offence had been committed, English fishermen were taken to Scottish courts and vice versa. Finally, not only in the past 12 months, but in the past three years, not one offence has been committed in that particular area.
Having said all that, which I said to the Scottish Fishermens Federation, if fishermen can show that serious and significant practical disadvantages are likely to arise from a settlement that has put two thirds of the territorial waters of the United Kingdom under Scottish jurisdiction, I will of course look at that issue.

Mr. Ian Davidson: I thank the Secretary of State for taking the time to give us a long list of responsibilities that remain with the House of Commons—my constituents speak of little else—but he unfortunately failed to reach social inclusion on his list. Can I have an assurance that Scottish Office Ministers will retain an interest in the matter, make sure that agencies relevant to social inclusion on a United Kingdom basis take an interest and follow through the steps that are necessary to improve the situation in Scotland? Will he also do what he can to make sure that Members of the House have places on social inclusion partnership boards, in particular in localities where they want to be so involved?

Dr. Reid: I shall try to do both those things and I am glad that the good people of Pollok are as interested as they no doubt are in social inclusion and other issues such as consumer protection, telecommunications, excise duties, betting, gaming and lotteries, regulation of anti-competitive practices, monopolies and mergers, intellectual property, regulation of drivers' hours, internet services, transport of radioactive material, war pensions, employment rights, health and safety at work and a whole list of others. I shall not turn the page.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: The Secretary of State has reeled off a long list of reserved matters, but does he agree that all those reserved matters fall within the remit of United Kingdom Departments as well? It would therefore be interesting to know what Scottish Office junior Ministers will be doing. Will they be answering specific queries relating to those matters or is their role that of marriage guidance therapists for the relationship between him and the First Minister?

Dr. Reid: The Ministers and the Secretary of State, along with Scottish Members of Parliament, will be representing the interests of the Scottish people in the reserved matters, as the White Paper said. The hon. Gentleman may not have read it, although it was debated in the House. I shall refrain from reading to him another page of the list of the responsibilities that we have, but I understand his difficulty in appreciating what any Member of Parliament can do. He is the Member of Parliament who said:
The Conservative party may not have any Scots Members of Parliament, but that is the electorate's fault."—[0fficial Report, 13 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 229.]
I am afraid that we take a different view in Scotland; we think that is the fault of the Tory party that it has no Scottish Members.

Agenda 2000 (Farming)

Sir Robert Smith: What decisions his Department has taken regarding the Agenda 2000 agreement as it affects the method of payment to farmers of the beef and dairy national envelopes and the successor scheme to hill livestock compensatory allowances; and if he will make a statement. [87523]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): No decisions have yet been taken pending the assessment of responses to earlier consultations and the adoption of the necessary European Union implementing regulations. From 1 July, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament

Sir Robert Smith: Does the Minister recognise that the failure to take a decision means that farmers will face uncertainty? They have enough problems without lacking certainty, which enables them to plan for the future. Will he at least make a commitment that, if there is any delay in the introduction of the new scheme and because of that uncertainty, a transitional scheme for HLCA payments will keep the cash flow going so that farmers at least do not face the penalty of late payments?

Mr. Macdonald: I can give a commitment that we shall try to provide a transitional scheme. The delay has been caused by the fact that the final detailed set of European Commission regulations is not yet ready; but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, when they are available, we shall consult widely on them with the farming community. The matters that we discuss will include the change from headage to area-based payments of HLCAs, and we shall take the results of the consultation very much into account.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—

Law Society and Bar Council

Mr. Tony McWalter: What representations he has received on the conduct of professional examinations by (a) the Law Society and (b) the Bar Council. [87544]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz): In the last year, the Department has received one letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) on behalf of his constituent, complaining of an individual instance of inadequate administration of the Bar vocational course. The legal practice course and the Bar vocational course are conducted by approved providers, rather than directly by the professional bodies.

Mr. McWalter: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, but is he aware that the case that I raised with his Department concerned someone who had failed an examination marginally because she had been sent an erroneous examination paper? When she appealed against the decision, she was asked on what ground she was appealing. As failure to administer the examination properly was not deemed to be a possible ground for appeal, she had to find some other ground, which made the case for the appeal somewhat convoluted.
I should be grateful for an assurance from my hon. Friend that the legal bodies will possibly allow appeals on the basis of failure by those bodies themselves to conduct their affairs in a satisfactory manner—however rare such failures may be.

Mr. Vaz: I know of the case that my hon. Friend has described. His constituent must be very frustrated and distressed, because she failed to get on to the course in question by only one mark. I know what it is to lose by only one, having lost a European selection by just one vote. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was also contesting the seat.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: We was both robbed!

Mr. Vaz: I am trying to find the person concerned to thank them for not voting for me.
Ministers have no say in the way in which such papers are marked, but I spoke to Mr. Niall Morrison, chief executive of the Bar Council, this afternoon. If my hon. Friend will send me the papers relating to the case, I will send them to Mr. Morrison, who has promised to look into the case for me.

Legal Aid (Chorley Citizens Advice Bureau)

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: If he will make a statement on the application by Chorley citizens advice bureau to obtain a contract for the provision of services under legal aid. [87545]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz): Chorley citizens advice bureau was not invited to bid for a contract because its application related to categories of law specified as low-priority by the north-western regional legal services committee's draft strategy.
Citizens advice bureaux will be an essential element of the local networks in the Community Legal Service. The fact that Chorley citizens advice bureau does not have a legal aid contract does not preclude it from being accredited to the Community Legal Service quality mark, once that is available, and taking part in its local referral network. Indeed, Chorley's plans to work closely with the local authority's welfare rights service fits well with the proposals for the Community Legal Service.

Mr. Hoyle: What assurance can be given to the people of Chorley? Does my hon. Friend's answer mean that there will be provision through welfare rights, or does it mean that we shall have to travel somewhere else within central Lancashire?

Mr. Vaz: I congratulate my hon. Friend on championing the work of Chorley CAB, which does an excellent job. As he knows, the north-western regional committee launched a strategy, and engaged in consultation. A representative of Chorley attended the meeting on 25 November last year, and did not object to what was being proposed.
Chorley CAB has a vital role to play in the Government's plans for a community legal service. It will act as a referral agency; it will continue its excellent work, supported by my hon. Friend; and I am convinced that it will play its part in ensuring that we have a decent, modern system of justice.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Burnett, who should make particular reference to Chorley, of course.

Mr. John Burnett: Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must take these matters seriously. It is a specific question. It relates simply to one citizens advice bureau, and that is Chorley.

Mr. Burnett: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker. As a precursor to my question, I should remind the Minister that, last week, he stressed the importance of abolishing legal aid for personal injury matters. [Hon. MEMBERS: "What about Chorley?"] I am getting to Chorley. That was despite objections throughout the House. What are the savings likely to be as a result of that closure and will he apply the savings to help the not-for-profit sector—for example, the citizens advice bureau in Chorley?

Madam Speaker: Order. That was a very good try, but Members should watch the questions to which they wish to put supplementary questions.

Mr. Vaz: I have no specific figures on Chorley concerning the points raised by the hon. Gentleman and

the impact of withdrawal of legal aid from personal injury cases, but, overall, the freeing-up of £70 million at its peak will enable the Government to use those resources to prioritise areas of need. It will be £70 million at its peak. It will fall in later years to £30 million.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are satisfied with the arrangements that have been made. The conditional fee arrangements will enable people in Chorley and elsewhere to have the benefit of receiving good legal advice on personal injury cases.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Did the contract application from Chorley contain a reference to legal aid being granted only in cases where solicitors themselves undertake the legal aid work? In view of the hon. Gentleman's astonishingly complacent reply to my query about the issue in respect of my constituency, will he assure the House that, when Chorley again makes what I am sure will be a successful bid, such a clause will be present in that agreement?

Mr. Vaz: Chorley was not invited to bid because the areas on which it wished to make its bids were regarded as low priorities.

Training (Judges)

Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement about the continuing review and scrutiny of training for judges. [87547]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz): The Judicial Studies Board is an independent body, controlled by a board whose members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. It is chaired by Lord Justice Waller, a Lord Justice of Appeal. For accounting purposes, it is treated as an advisory non-departmental public body. Its powers and obligations are set out in a memorandum of understanding with the Lord Chancellor's Department. The board produces and publishes a report to the Lord Chancellor each year.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that informative reply. I take this, my first, opportunity to congratulate him on his recent appointment.
Given the importance of training, both for individual judges and for the standing of the judiciary as a whole, will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that future training will be such as to ensure that we can avoid a repetition of the embarrassment that Lord Hoffmann recently inflicted on the judiciary by his failure to declare a relevant interest in the Pinochet case and then to withdraw from it?

Mr. Vaz: Their lordships have already ruled on that case. Obviously, the issue of declarations of interest is important and is dealt with in an important way by whoever sits on the Bench. I am certain that the training that the Judicial Studies Board initiates, both at the induction stages when new judges are appointed and


in the three-year cycle, will include the whole issue of conflicts of interest, and any other potentially embarrassing and difficult points that may be raised.

Mrs. Ann Cryer: Would my hon. Friend like to comment on the measure of success his Department is having in moving towards judges being appointed from a much wider cross-section of society?

Mr. Vaz: It is always the Lord Chancellor's wish to ensure that judges are appointed from a wide section of society and it is right that, in the past year, 24 per cent. of the appointments made by my noble and learned Friend have been women. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in congratulating Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss on her appointment as the first woman president of the family division. It is important that the appointments should reflect society, but it is equally important that those appointed to the Bench should be appointed on merit. That is how my noble and learned Friend appoints people—they have to be of the highest quality. I believe that we have the best judiciary in the world and it is important that the merits tests are met.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I join the Minister in his congratulations to Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss on her appointment as the first lady president of the family division. As the Minister said, the British judiciary is the finest in the world, but I am sure that he agrees that there would be grave concern throughout the legal profession and the country if there were to be any sign of the politicisation of the judiciary in the future. Will he confirm, for himself and his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, that the Government have no intention of politicising the judiciary? Will he further confirm that he recognises the sanctity of the separation of powers doctrine so that we will not see any interference by Parliament under this Government in the freedom of the judiciary?

Mr. Vaz: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his first appearance in his new role at the Dispatch Box during Question Time. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, of course, the judiciary must be apolitical. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor wishes to ensure the integrity and impartiality of those appointed to the judiciary and he has made sure that that has been the case.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Is the Minister satisfied that the training and instruction of judges provides them with sufficient sensitivity to arrange their private passions and interests to coincide with the natural holiday time of the courts? Given that many jurors find that they lose pay, their businesses suffer or they miss out on tickets to Wimbledon, does he share my dismay that one of the learned judges has put his passion for Wimbledon above his obligations to the court? If Madam

Speaker were to be invited to Wimbledon, I know that she would fulfil her obligation to be here. Can we have a rap on the knuckles for judges who put other things before their duties?

Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend—he is a good friend—was present at the European selection meeting when I lost by a single vote, but I have no spare tickets for him. Judge Hooton, the judge to whom my hon. Friend has referred, had booked his annual leave some time ago. It had been estimated by the lawyers that the case, which he was due to have started on Monday, would last for three to four days. At the outset of the trial, the lawyers informed the judge, without providing the court with any prior notice, that they anticipated that the case would last five or six days. On that basis, the judge was forced to adjourn the case. In my view, it is disappointing that the judge should have been placed in that position.

Juvenile Witnesses

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What discussions he has had with Ministers in the Home Department about the need for ensuring that cases involving juvenile witnesses are dealt with speedily; and if he will make a statement. [87548]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz): It is important that cases involving children as victims or witnesses are dealt with as speedily as is commensurate with the interests of justice. There are a number of initiatives in place to ensure that this objective is met. My officials are in regular and close contact with those of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to identify where improvements might be made.

Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for his reply. It is routine for cases involving child or juvenile complainants to be fast-tracked but it is not routine for child or juvenile witnesses to be fast-tracked. May I respectfully suggest that that should be looked into because it is vital and, in both sets of circumstances, the pressures and problems are alike?

Mr. Vaz: I know that the hon. Gentleman, as a member of the national council of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, has a particular interest in these matters. As from 1 April this year, a national monitoring scheme for cases involving child witnesses has been put in place. Its purpose is to ensure that such cases are dealt with as speedily as possible, and to identify how we might make improvements in the way in which they are handled, including the possibility of fast- tracking, although we must see how the monitoring proceeds. Plans are also under way to introduce a pre-trial check list focusing on children's issues as a means of supplementing the plea and directions hearing form.

Regulation of Operating Department Practitioners

Helen Jones: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a registration scheme for operating department practitioners and for the regulation of their professional conduct; and for related purposes.
I am conscious, from conversations with colleagues, that some hon. Members are not wholly aware of what operating department practitioners are or what they do. They are a key group of health care workers who were first formally identified in the Lewin report in 1970, but who have existed under different names for a good many years. They were known first as theatre technicians, and then as operating department assistants. In the 1990s, as their qualifications changed from those awarded under the city and guilds course to the national vocational qualification level 3 in operating department practice, they adopted a different title to reflect the increased level of skills involved.
Originally, ODPs dealt with anaesthetics and the care of anaesthetised patients, but they are now involved in all work of the operating department, including not only anaesthetics, but the surgical process and the monitoring and care of patients in the recovery room. In addition, because of the technical skills that they acquire for work in the operating department, they now work in other areas of the hospital where a knowledge of technology is required. It is common to find ODPs working as part of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation teams, or in accident and emergency departments and intensive care units, as well as in other areas such as radiology departments. They are also involved in the transfer of critically ill patients.
Operating department practitioners have responsibility for checking, calibrating and monitoring much of the electromechanical equipment that is used in hospitals, including lung ventilators, automatic infusion devices and other patient monitoring equipment. They are skilled personnel, and the number of skills required of them has increased as technology has expanded. Many of them go on to take additional qualifications to allow them to work in specialised areas, such as ophthalmic, vascular or plastic surgery. Others move on to manage operating departments and into associated services. The theatre manager in my local hospital is an ODP, not a nurse.
I hope that what I have said is enough to convince the House that ODPs not only carry out a vital role, but care for incredibly vulnerable patients. Most members of the public would be surprised to learn that when they go into hospital for an operation it is a matter of chance whether they are cared for and supported in theatre by a nurse or by an ODP.
Since the Bevan report in 1989, it has been common for ODPs to be considered alongside their nursing colleagues for all roles in the operating theatre. In many trusts, they are on the same pay spines and the same rotas. People would be astonished to discover, however, that nurses working in theatres are subject to a registration scheme, whereas the ODPs working alongside them are not. It is nonsense that ODPs are subject only to a voluntary registration scheme, given that they care for the same vulnerable patients as nurses and both have access to controlled drugs and sensitive equipment. That situation has been allowed to persist, despite the fact

that the Bevan report recommended a compulsory registration scheme, as did the Audit Commission in 1997.
That difference flies in the face of all professional opinion, since ODP registration is not only supported by the Association of Operating Department Practitioners, but the Royal College of Surgeons of England, the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Association of Theatre Nurses—in other words, the very people who work in operating theatres day by day and know what happens—want registration. The safety of the public demands it.
My Bill is necessary to put an end to the chaos, because the current voluntary system has failed. The Association of Operating Department Practitioners has only about 1,500 registered members, but the estimates of the numbers of ODPs practising in the United Kingdom vary between 5,000 and 8,000. The fact that we do not know the numbers shows the chaos that has been created. It also means that only between one quarter and one fifth of practitioners are registered.
My Bill would put an end to that confusion, and would protect the public by setting up a board under the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicines to oversee the education and training of ODPs, and it would ensure that only state-registered ODPs were allowed to practise. It would provide for a similar system to continue when the Health Bill comes into force and a council for health service professions is set up. The Bill would ensure that the board had the power to investigate evidence of poor practice or of malpractice, and to suspend or remove a person's registration if the evidence warranted it.
Malpractice is, of course, rare but when it does occur in such work, it is serious. Well-documented cases include that of Anthony Kelly, who was found practising as an ODP on a forged certificate, or Justin Lee Alliston, who was arrested after abusing controlled drugs at the hospital where he worked. There have been other cases of people abusing or selling drugs, of tampering with sensitive equipment and even one case of a serious sexual assault on a female patient in the anaesthetic room.
The real scandal about those cases is that the people who commit those offences are perfectly free to continue practising in the NHS afterwards. Indeed, there are well-documented cases of people being dismissed from one hospital for poor professional practice or for malpractice and then getting a job in another hospital because their history has not been checked. That is not safe for patients, and it is an insult to the many good and conscientious ODPs.
Trusts are poor at checking registration and the problems in the system are exacerbated by the fact that many people find work in theatres through agencies. My Bill, therefore, would also regulate agencies providing work for ODPs. It would make them responsible for checking the registration of anyone on their books, and it would impose a compulsory code of practice, requiring agencies to report any evidence of failures to reach the highest standards of professional conduct. Importantly, agencies also would have to check that the requisite occupational health screening had been carried out.
The Bill is about the safety of the public. People have a right when they go into hospital for an operation to be sure that they will be treated by adequately qualified and trained staff who subscribe to a proper code of professional ethics. That is not the case at the moment.


I believe that the safety of the public must come first. I hope, therefore, that the case for registration is seen to be unanswerable, and that the Bill will have the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Helen Jones, Charlotte Atkins, Lorna Moffatt, Dr. Alan Whitehead, Mrs. Joan Humble, Mr. Jonathan Shaw, Mrs. Diana Organ and Mr. Stephen Hesford.

REGULATION OF OPERATING DEPARTMENT PRACTITIONERS

Helen Jones accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for a registration scheme for operating department practitioners and for the regulation of their professional conduct; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 July, and to be printed [Bill 129].

Opposition Day

[16TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Passport Delays

Madam Speaker: We now come to the first Opposition motion. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the Government's handling of the current crisis in the issuing of passports including the untimely introduction of children's passports, the untimely introduction of a flawed computer system, the unsatisfactory manner in which the above were introduced, the failure to instruct the passport office to work around the clock to meet demand, confusion over compensation, the failure to deliver passports in time for many families who have now missed overseas trips, the failure to meet the Passport Agency's turn around target of 10 days and the great inconvenience and distress caused to the general public; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take urgent measures to ensure the speedy and efficient delivery of passports and that there are no further instances of UK citizens being denied overseas trips due to the combination of bad planning, inefficiency and complacency.
In deploring the Government's record on the management of the Passport Agency, I pay tribute to the many staff who have had to work in situations of amazing difficulty caused by the Government's policies and incompetence. It is not only the Opposition who deplore the present situation, but hundreds of thousands of Britons who are trying to do nothing more than have their annual holiday.
I hope that we will not witness the Home Secretary's usual formula for when something goes wrong in the Home Office. First, he smiles engagingly; then he apologises humbly; and then he shrugs helplessly, saying that he does not know how it happened. In the two short weeks for which I have held this brief, he has come to the House three times to smile engagingly, apologise humbly and shrug helplessly. Last week, he did not know why the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 happened to be minus a few crimes. Of course he took responsibility and apologised profusely, but he could not tell us why it had happened.
Yesterday, the Home Secretary was at it again. He did not know why a report had lain in the Home Office unactioned for two years during which he alone presided there. Of course he took responsibility and apologised profusely, but he could not tell us why it had happened. We, however, know why the passports crisis has happened.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), has his own explanation. On the "Today" programme this morning, he said that it was all the general public's fault, because they had panicked and were applying too early; by going and queueing for hours in the rain, they were causing the problem. It was a piece of arrogance to cover up a piece of gross incompetence.
When I visited the passport office in Petty France today, every single person to whom I spoke had an immediate case. People were not panicked into queueing


for holidays in August or September, as the Minister suggested. In some cases, the issue is not anything as pleasant as a holiday, and people need to go abroad on urgent and personal business. They are being caused not only great inconvenience but massive distress.
Queueing in the rain, in many cases since dawn, were mothers with very tiny babies, some as young as six weeks. They were there because the Government have changed the rules. All those mothers said to me, in different ways, that they thought that the Government must be barmy.
What did the Government do to cause the crisis? They alone decided—they cannot blame it on the Passport Agency, the Opposition, the previous Government or even the general public—that from last October children, including new babies, would have to have their own passport. That has led to an enormous rise in the number of applications.
The Home Secretary will say that the measure is designed to combat abduction, but the mothers to whom I spoke today could not understand that. They said that a photograph of a baby of six weeks of age will not look much like that baby a few months later. In a case of suspected abduction, what a baby looks like will not be immediately obvious.
I hope that the Home Secretary will dispel my cynicism, but is it possible that the motivation behind the change was the vast increase in revenue that would occur as a result of the extra passport applications?

Mr. Denis MacShane: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: One parent in the queue was applying for passports for four children, so he had to pay four sets of fees when, in the past, the children would have been included on the parents' passports. Is the Secretary of State seriously going to contest that increased revenue played no part in his decision to introduce the rule?

Mr. MacShane: I am the parent of four children, and have no problem with securing independent passports for them. Is the right hon. Lady aware that, under the previous Government, very serious questions were raised about the abduction of children? This is not a laughing matter to be treated in the flippant tone that she has adopted. She may have the same smiling face as she had when she was a baby, but I assure her that it is worth the extra money to throw some sand in the wheels of would-be child abductors. I have no problems with the rule, and neither would any serious parent.

Miss Widdecombe: I may be wrong, but my impression from the father to whom I spoke today was that he did not have to subsist on a parliamentary salary and that the sum involved was a significant consideration for him. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the mothers to whom I spoke said that an unrecognisable photograph is not much of an anti-abduction measure. I am therefore not at all convinced that the hon. Gentleman has presented an overwhelming argument.
For a moment, let us suppose that the measure were justified. The net result has been an increase of more than a quarter of million in passport applications. That is

a fact, and it has taken place against the background of the introduction of flawed technology into the Passport Agency.

Maria Eagle: Who signed the contract?

Miss Widdecombe: I am asked, from a sedentary position, who signed the contract, and I can tell the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) that it was signed with Siemens under the Labour Government's first private finance initiative scheme. What is more, the Government pay Siemens on a case-by-case administration basis. I hope that the Home Secretary will tell the House whether the company is still making profits despite the penalties that have been imposed, and that he will do so before the hon. Lady throws out another spurious question.
The technology is flawed and—unbelievably—there are no proper back-up systems. Now I am a reasonable person, and I am the first to admit that unexpected glitches sometimes happen, that flaws will appear and that the normal smooth working of a Government Department will be held up and interrupted when new systems and technology are introduced. I admit that that can happen, but it is important to ensure that the two things do not happen together. Given the risks of obstruction to normal administration associated with the introduction of new technology, the Government's simultaneous implementation of the new rule for children was an unnecessary complication. It would have been sensible to separate the two changes by a considerable period. We should have had the introduction either of the children's passports, or of the technology. The Government ought not to have confused the two.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: When technology goes wrong, the response should be immediate. Yet it is only now—the day of an Opposition debate—that the Government have got round to saying that they will take on some extra staff and run an advertising campaign. Yet again, we see the pattern of operation employed by the Home Secretary when he responds to problems. A year and two months too late, he came to the House to put right an omission in the prevention of terrorism Act.

Mr. O'Brien: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: Yesterday, the Home Secretary sounded as if he had done some great thing when he told us that he had asked the Director General of the Prison Service to ensure that the situation at Wormwood Scrubs would be sorted out, but that, too, came two years too late, long after receipt of the report.

Mr. O'Brien: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: Today, he stands here again—

Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady is not giving way. Do I understand that to be correct?

Miss Widdecombe: I should have thought that the whole House understood that, Madam Speaker, but apparently the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) did not.
Today, yet again, the Home Secretary follows his usual pattern. He has come to the House, at the last minute and once the pressure has grown and the public are worried, to tell us that he will put matters right. He seriously expects us to thank him, and to say what a wonderful thing he is doing.
I have described what I found this morning—not a public in panic, but a public massively frustrated. According to the Government's figures, given in a parliamentary answer, the number of calls that receive an answering machine message—the Government coyly describe those as courtesy messages—stood at 1.1 million in May. In April, the figure was 460,000, and in January just 118,000. There has been a tenfold increase in the number of those who receive a so-called courtesy message, which is, in fact, a brush-off, since there is no one to answer the call.
Yet the Home Secretary wonders why people who have received that answer again and again have finally decided that the only way in which they can take charge of the situation is to go to the passport office. At least they are not faced with an answering machine when they get there. However, they are faced with a massive queue to join a massive queue. The queue inside the office that I visited today was two hours long. The head of the queue outside the office had been there since dawn, and the tail for several hours.
All those people had imminent holidays or journey abroad. They had not left applications to the last moment, and in several cases, were doing as the Minister said and not turning up until the last week. Most had applied weeks ago—in one case four weeks, in another seven—but their passports had not been delivered, or, having been due for delivery from another office, they had been diverted and lost. People turned up at the passport office because it was the only way in which they could take charge of what was going on. If I were in their position, I should do exactly the same.
I am not surprised that people are going to the passport office, and I am sure that they will continue to do so until the Home Secretary clears up the mess.
What I do find offensive is that although that situation has been getting worse, has been widely commented on in the press and has been the subject of constituents' correspondence, as hon. Members on both sides of the House will know, and although it has caused constituents distress and been the subject of parliamentary questions to Ministers, until the past 24 hours there has been a denial that there was any problem.

Mr. David Maclean: I intervene because, as my right hon. Friend made those remarks, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), was shaking his head. I find it offensive to receive a letter from the Minister at the weekend enclosing a photograph that shows a passport office with no queue around it. Through my right hon. Friend I ask the Minister when that photograph was taken—was it using infra-red technology at 2 o'clock in the morning?

Miss Widdecombe: I am delighted to pass on that question. I assume that the photograph was taken at public

expense and I wonder what the point of it was. Surely the Minister should have responded to the precise query sensibly and not with a gimmick.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: In a minute. Perhaps the Secretary of State—

Mr. O'Brien: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: The whole House heard me say, "In a minute." If the hon. Gentleman did not, he will find that I will not give way to him at all.
Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us about the cost of that gimmick and the reply and give my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) a clear answer about when the photograph was taken and under what circumstances.
Why has it taken so long for the Minister to wake up to the fact that many passport offices were not working at the weekends and around the clock and taking extra measures to reduce the queues and accommodate more people?
Does the Minister recall the purpose of the Passport Agency? Its main aim is set out in its terms of reference, which state that its duty is to provide passport services for British nationals in the United Kingdom promptly and economically. The terms of reference continue that the turnround time should be 10 days.
The Passport Agency has a number of key performance targets and one is to
Turn around applications in 15 working days in April, and 10 days for the rest of the year".
To say that that target has been missed is to make an understatement. In Glasgow, the average processing time for correctly completed, straightforward applications—not even the complex ones—that are submitted in person and so have not gone astray is not 10 but 39 working days; in Newport, it is 38 days; in Belfast, it is 37 days; in Liverpool, it is 36 days; and in Peterborough, it is 33 days.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: My constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong, have now been waiting well over seven weeks. They sent their applications by special delivery to Peterborough, so the figures that my right hon. Friend has been given may not be 100 per cent. correct.

Miss Widdecombe: I am inclined to ask whether performance pay is tied up with some of those targets. The real performance under examination, however, is that of the Ministers who, even when confronted with the growing evidence of those sorts of waiting times and the distress that they were causing, took refuge in the statement that only 50 families have not got their passports at all and in 99.9 per cent. of cases the passport offices manage to get the passport out. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that in that statement he is completely ignoring the hoops and antics that people have to go through to get their passports in the first place? It is no boast to say, "We gave this person his passport", if he has waited a large number of weeks instead of 10 days, had to queue for anything up to eight hours and if all that


came about because the Government caused the situation through the combination of their policy on children's passports and on new technology.
Now that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) has been patient, I will give way to him.

Mr. O'Brien: Well, the right hon. Lady took interventions from two Members of her own party before I could get in to speak—and the right hon. Lady says that she is fair. May I say to her that she was misleading the House—[Interruption.]—

Madam Speaker: Order. No right hon. or hon. Member misleads this House, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Will he withdraw that remark and rephrase his question?

Mr. O'Brien: I make the point that the right hon. Lady is not misleading the House—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I take it that the hon. Gentleman is withdrawing his earlier point.

Mr. O'Brien: Yes, the right hon. Lady is not misleading the House, but she said that it was only from today that 300 people had been recruited to attend to the delays in passports. I advise her that the Passport Agency recruited 300 people a week ago to attend to those delays. I also advise her that my residence in London is near Petty France; for 16 years, during the time that the Conservative Government were in power, there have always been queues outside the passport office. Every day, for 16 years, there have been queues outside the passport office. If the right hon. Lady wants to comment on that issue, we should have the true facts.

Miss Widdecombe: I am so glad that I took that most helpful intervention.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Miss Widdecombe: Let me finish dealing with the intervention of the hon. Member for Normanton and then I will come to my hon. Friend.
I asked some specific questions on my visit today. I asked what was normal, and what would normally be expected at this time of year. In addition to the figures that show the huge rise in the number of applications and of people waiting, and in the number of queues, I was told by staff at the Passport Agency—many of whom had worked there for several years—that they had never seen anything like this before.
I asked the manager to compare the current situation to what he would expect if there had not been the rise in applications for children's passports and the chaos caused by the technology problem. He said that two extremely long queues would not normally be there. One queue was there because work had been shifted from other offices due to the technology failure; the other was there because people were coming to the office to get their passports because of the publicity surrounding the Government's failures. One of the queues was extremely long and most

people were joining it. Without those two queues, people would not have been outside the office, in the rain, since dawn.
There is no doubt that, from time to time, there is a queue for a short period, but to queue from dawn is not normal. The length of that queue, from dawn, is not normal. The testimony from the passport office today was that none of that was normal.

Mr. Fabricant: It would seem that I have the misfortune to live in the vicinity of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). I can inform my right hon. Friend that I walk to the House of Commons every day, through Petty France. Usually, there are short queues on Tuesday mornings only. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want deliberately to mislead the House, but I can say that there have been queues every day—not only on Tuesday mornings—and that they wrap round and join up in a continuous circle. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would like to withdraw his question; he knows that it was untrue.

Miss Widdecombe: I am tempted to give the hon. Member for Normanton a second chance, because the first intervention was extremely helpful.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: Tempted as I am to give way to the hon. Gentleman, I do want to make some progress.
I want the Secretary of State to answer some simple questions. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt by allowing that the measure on children's passports was desirable. However, what prevented him from postponing the implementation of that measure until the computer system had been sorted out?
Is it true that the Home Secretary is paying Siemens case by case? Has the company incurred a net penalty as a result of its recent failure, or has it continued to make profits because of the rise in applications, owing to the necessity of children having to have their own passport? Will he state clearly to the House the increase in revenue to the Passport Agency that has resulted from the requirement for children and babies to have their own passport? Will he state why no back-up systems were in place when the computer technology was introduced? Will he state why, when it became evident that the computer technology was going wrong, he did not then—at that time, not a week ago—embark on immediate action to get the extra staff and allocate the extra hours that would be necessary to avert a problem?
Does the Home Secretary accept that the number of people who are brushed off with an answering machine message—1.1 million, which represents a tenfold increase since January and a doubling since last month—is unacceptable? Will he tell us what he proposes to do to make sure that people are not encouraged to come to London to swell the ranks of people queueing at the Passport Agency simply by being unable to get an answer when they ring up with a perfectly routine query? Does he accept that the present situation is unusual, or does he go along with his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in saying that there is no crisis, and anyway, if there is one, the general public caused it?

Mr. John Bercow: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but, given the observations


made by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), it is essential to establish whether his views are shared by Ministers. Do those on the Treasury Bench go in for sleepwalking in the way that the hon. Gentleman on the Back Bench does?

Miss Widdecombe: That would indeed be an intriguing question.
Does the Home Secretary agree that, as a result of his requirement that children should have their own passport and that parents should apply on their behalf, the number of applications for children's passports this year so far—I need hardly point out, even to the right hon. Gentleman, that we are only half way through the year—is now 796,000; whereas the figure for the whole of last year was only 412,000? Might not the right hon. Gentleman have deduced from that vast increase that extraordinary measures were necessary? Was it not exactly the wrong time to put not only extraordinary measures, but all ordinary measures, at risk by introducing new technology?

Mr. Maclean: Before my right hon. Friend resumes her seat, will she ask the Home Secretary one more crucial question regarding the allegations that security has been relaxed in order to increase the output of the Passport Agency? She will be aware that, in July 1997, the Under-Secretary said that the new computer would improve security. However, I understand that on 24 February this year, instructions were sent out to drop eight special security checks so as to improve output. In addition, there are allegations that those measures were later dropped, because of the scandal that they could produce.

Miss Widdecombe: That is indeed an important issue, and I should be grateful if the Home Secretary commented on it. He should also tell the House whether it is true that Siemens staff have been processing applications, and whether he envisages any problems arising as a result.
I am sure, because it is his style, that the Home Secretary will stand at the Dispatch Box and apologise, but, on this occasion, let him not shrug. Let him not boast about last-minute measures, but let him make an honest analysis of what has gone wrong, tell us where responsibility lies and, for once, tell us how he is going to get a grip on his Department. For the third time in two weeks, he has had to come to the House to repent of his sins. It is time he learned to go and sin no more.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
acknowledges the difficult operational situation that the Passport Agency is facing and greatly regrets the inconvenience caused to the public; notes the measures that the Agency is taking to remedy the situation including the deployment of 300 additional staff, the streamlining of processes to boost productivity whilst maintaining security and the willingness of Agency staff to work seven days a week to help clear the arrears; further notes that in spite of this difficult position the Agency is meeting 99.99 per cent. of travel dates and will continue to do so throughout the summer and beyond; and agrees that it is right to introduce the policy of separate passports for children.

I may indeed repent, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) opened her remarks by sneering at the idea that the Secretary of State for the Home Department should come to the House to apologise and accept responsibility for something that had gone wrong. We understand why someone who served in the previous Administration should find either the concept of an apology or the idea of accepting responsibility wholly alien.
It is true that, in every Government Department, under every Administration, things go wrong from time to time. It is also true—as the right hon. Lady has every reason to know—that things go wrong in the Home Office more often than anywhere else. Moreover, when things go wrong, they normally do so in threes or fours. Of course I would prefer to be performing my customary task of coming to the House and setting out the achievements of the Government and of the Home Office. There is a major difference between this Government and our predecessor—and it is one of the reasons why the previous Government were drummed out of office in the most dramatic defeat since the war. Under the previous Government, when things went wrong—as they inevitably did occasionally—Conservative Ministers did not come to the House to apologise when an apology was necessary; nor did they accept responsibility. They wriggled and evaded responsibility every time.
Conservative Ministers came up with the idea of executive agencies. I do not wholly disagree with that concept; it has some merit. However, I have always disagreed with the idea that the establishment of agencies would enable Ministers to evade their responsibility to the House. The right hon. Lady, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), their right hon. Friends and all the rest of them developed this neat difference between accountability and responsibility: they were responsible for policy but never for the operation of that policy.
To underline the fact that they were not responsible when things went wrong, Conservative Ministers would take out the basin and wash their hands. The right hon. Lady used to do that—as did the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). When questions were asked about the operation of an agency, who replied to those queries? Was it the Secretary of State or the Minister of State? Not on your life. They simply acted as the postbox every time. Conservative Ministers treated written answers like pieces of stinking fish and said, "I refer to the letter that I have received from the chief executive."

Miss Widdecombe: The Home Secretary is in a time warp: he thinks that he is still in opposition and that all he must do is rehearse the sins, as he sees them, of the previous Government. He is now in government and we are asking him what he is doing about this mess. The right hon. Gentleman stands at the Dispatch Box recounting history, but we are interested in the present. Will he now return to the present and answer for himself?

Mr. Straw: I hope that the right hon. Lady feels better for having got that off her chest.

Mr. Maclean: rose—

Mr. Straw: I want to make progress but I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman because, outside the House, he is my friend.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the Home Secretary. Will he tell the House who took the decision to issue passports to babies and children? Was it the Passport Agency or Ministers?

Mr. Straw: I did, on the recommendation of the agency. I shall explain exactly why I took that decision and from where the calls to do so came. I shall be absolutely delighted to do that.

Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman because I admire him greatly—I hope that my remark does not destroy his reputation on the right of the Tory party—and then I shall go on with my speech.

Mr. Bercow: I was worried to see the right hon. Gentleman in a state of such perturbation a few moments ago. He now seems to have calmed down somewhat. Will he give the House an assurance that, no matter how many families need to be compensated for the loss of their holidays, there will be no increase in passport application charges over and above those that might otherwise have taken place in the lifetime of this Parliament?

Mr. Straw: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that families with children and individual applicants who have their holidays wrecked, or who cannot meet their travel date for any other reason, will receive full compensation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question".] I am answering the hon. Gentleman; he knows that I answer his questions. The total amount of compensation is very small. There may have to be increases in the passport fee for the normal reasons to which he adverts, but there is no reason why any increase should result from the level of compensation.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No, I have given way more times than the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald did during her speech. I shall get on with my speech, but I will, of course, take more interventions should the occasion arise and if I decide to accept them.
As we all know, the Passport Agency is not providing its customers with the service that they and the House expect or that the agency has promised. I add my personal apologies to those of the chief executive of the agency and those of the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), to all those who have been inconvenienced by the inadequate standard of service, and especially to those whose holidays or business trips have been disrupted or cancelled.
Today, I want to put the situation into context and to set out why and how it has come to pass and what the agency and Ministers are doing, as quickly as possible, to resolve matters satisfactorily.
First, I shall set out the context. The Passport Agency is one of the largest passport-issuing authorities in the world. It issues around 5 million passports a year, or an average of more than 400,000 a month. The work is highly seasonal, however. In a typical year, 50 per cent. of the work is compressed into a third of the year, with the peak months being the pre-summer holiday period of April to June.
Since its establishment as an agency in 1991, and until this year, the Passport Agency has had a successful track record in delivering high-quality public services. It is one of the few organisations that has three times won a charter mark for excellence, which it gained last year and in 1992 and 1995.

Mr. Keith Simpson: Under a Conservative Government.

Mr. Straw: Well, we have a Labour Government now, and the agency won the charter mark again last year.
In recent months, however, performance has been poor. Around 500,000 applications currently await processing, which amounts to a backlog of about a month's work. That is twice the level of outstanding work a year ago. Around half those applications are for people wanting to travel in August, September and beyond. The other half are for travel in July. The agency is now clearing almost 150,000 cases a week, which is 20 per cent. higher than the figure for this time last year.
The agency is prioritising work according to travel dates. In the vast majority of cases, applicants are receiving their passports by the stated travel date. However, I fully recognise that even where customers are, in the end, receiving their passports in time to travel—I entirely agree with what the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said about this—they have had to endure a good deal of anxiety and, in come cases, considerable trouble and inconvenience in having to make personal visits, with long waits, to the caller offices in London, Liverpool, Newport, Belfast and Peterborough.

Mr. Edward Leigh: A constituent of mine was forced to travel to Liverpool and miss a day's work. He noticed that the queue outside the office had vanished, but it had simply been transferred inside. I refer the Home Secretary to questions that were asked earlier. We have been sent a picture showing that there is no queue. Is it a symbol of new Labour that real problems are simply airbrushed out of the picture? When will the queues disappear?

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary sent the letter with a picture from the Liverpool Echo. That was simply a matter of record, because that newspaper had run a story saying that the queues in Liverpool had disappeared, and there were no queues at that time.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Straw: I have given way enough.
It is pretty obvious that things have not worked out as anybody anticipated. There will still be queues even when we have returned the Passport Agency to operation at the levels that we expect, for reasons that my hon. Friend


the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and—I think—other hon Members understand. The caller offices are there to deal with normal applications.
Although in respects other than queueing the situation is worse than that under the previous Administration—I do not suggest otherwise—I have been informed by the agency that, for six weeks in 1996 immediately following the withdrawal of the British visitors passport by the previous Administration, queues at the London caller office were longer and people were waiting longer.
The agency is clearing about 150,000 cases a week. In this calendar year, 3.25 million passports have already been issued. For literally 99.99 per cent. of applications, the agency has met due travel dates. In 93 cases, the passport has not been delivered on time, and those customers have had their plans either seriously disrupted or cancelled. Those customers obviously wanted a holiday or business trip on time and not monetary compensation—I understand that entirely—but in such circumstances, the agency pays compensation in full and as soon as possible.
I visited the agency's office in London yesterday and spoke to members of the public who were queueing. Some had been queueing for several hours; I do not for a moment regard that as acceptable. Those whom I met were showing extraordinary stoicism in the face of these problems. By 6.30 pm yesterday, 1,500 personal callers to the London office had been dealt with—twice the usual level for a Monday.
I was asked when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I first became aware of the problems and what we decided to do about them. We became aware of the problems in late March from the regular reports that we receive from the agency. My hon. Friend has paid very close personal attention on my behalf to what has been going on at the agency. As soon as he alerted himself to the nature of the problems—to the early warning signs—he called in the agency's chief executive, I saw the permanent secretary at the Home Office and meetings were held. There were also meetings between my hon. Friend and trade unions.
An action plan was agreed to meet what was anticipated at that stage to be the rise in demand and the need to raise output. As a result, an extra 300 people were recruited to deal with the backlog. Staff have been working evenings during the week and over weekends to process postal applications. In order to clear straightforward renewal applications, we also agreed that, where the agency was satisfied about the identity of the applicant, certain passports could instead be extended for two years.
I recognise that the situation did not improve as we had anticipated, although I should make it clear that, having fallen in late March, output has continued to rise and is now at a record level. That must be borne in mind, although I quite understand that it is of no comfort to those who are in the queue.
As a result of further decisions, we have decided—the agency has announced this today—that an extra 100 staff will be recruited to help to deal with the backlog in addition to the 300 extra staff who are being recruited. Advertisements will be placed in the national media advising the public how best to apply for a new passport

that is relevant to their travel date. Those measures should help the agency to get turnround times back to 10 days by September. That is what I am expecting.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way to my neighbour.

Mr. Evans: The announcement of the extra 100 staff and anticipation of September is fine, but unless my constituent Sharon Gowan gets her passport by Friday, she will not be able to go on her honeymoon. The Home Secretary said that compensation is often not what people want. My constituent's honeymoon will be ruined, yet the cheque for her passport was cashed in May. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure her that, without queueing for a whole day at an office, she will be able to get a passport by Friday so that she can go on her honeymoon?

Mr. Straw: I will give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that his constituent will get her passport. [Interruption.] Whether Opposition Members raise their eyebrows or not, we will move heaven and earth to make sure that she gets her passport. I have had constituents in similar circumstances. I do not ask special favours of the passport office—any more than I do of any other part of government—because I happen to be Home Secretary. [Interruption.] I consider it extremely important for people in positions such as mine not to ask for favours in such circumstances. Where such cases have been raised, my office in Blackburn has dealt with them, and they have been dealt with satisfactorily.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Straw: I have taken a large number of interventions. I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, then I shall get on with my speech.

Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. I am intrigued by his last answer, which promises special treatment—I am delighted that it does—for the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). Can the Home Secretary give a similar assurance to all those with equally urgent business abroad who are biting their fingernails because they have not heard from the passport office, and are in despair because they do not know what will happen? Are the only people who can get such a guarantee to be those whose cases are raised specially in the House?

Mr. Straw: No, I did not promise the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) special treatment. I did promise him the same kind of treatment as every other right hon. and hon. Member has received from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and his private office.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall proceed with my speech. I have already taken many interventions, as I am always delighted to do. I shall take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty),


then I shall set out other arrangements that we will put in place in respect of applications up against a late travel date.

Mr. Michael Connarty: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Is he aware that—not by going through a Member of Parliament but by sending a clear explanatory letter by fax to the Glasgow office—several of my constituents reported that within half an hour they had a reply and a promised delivery date, which was kept to? I have found that if people's cases have a clear priority and there is a deadline to be met, they are dealt with swiftly, without having to go through a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Straw: If right hon. and hon. Members will bear with me, I shall set out the advice that we are giving about late applications.
People should apply by post as early as possible, and where possible, at least a month before travelling. People who are not travelling urgently should apply via the Post Office or a World Choice travel agent or direct to the Passport Agency by post. They should make sure that the form is properly completed, and that all documents are enclosed. Eighty per cent. of people apply by post in those ways. UKPA is prioritising all applications by date of travel, which is why we say that, in 99.99 per cent. of cases, people receive their passport on time.
A small extra charge of £3.20 is levied by the Post Office and World Choice travel agents under an arrangement with the Passport Agency, but Post Office and the travel agent staff are able to pre-check the applications and forward them direct to the agency. Because they have been pre-checked, they are being dealt with a little more quickly than direct applications.
Those who have not received their passport within seven days of their travel date should go in person, if they can, to their nearest regional passport office. Personal callers should please go to the offices only if their application is urgent—within seven days of their travel date, and not for later travel dates. We also ask people in that predicament not to leave their personal call to the last day, in case there are queries on the application. The agency has assured me that those travelling later in the year will be dealt with within the agreed time.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: rose—

Mr. Straw: Let me deal with those who need to travel urgently. For the time being, those who need to travel within two weeks and who have not made any application must apply in person at their nearest passport office. Those who need such an urgent passport—I emphasise that this applies to urgent passports—and who for any reason cannot get to an office in person, should write direct to Mr. Kevin Sheehan, director of operations at Clive house. We will send this information in a "dear colleague" letter. I have already said that there will be standing arrangements to deal with constituents' cases.
Let me—

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Straw: No. Let me give—

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has indicated that he is not giving way, at least for the time being.

Mr. Straw: Let me deal with the background and the reasons for the current problems. As we know, the agency operates under a framework document set out in May 1996. It set the agency a number of objectives. Among them were measures to prevent and detect passport fraud, introduce a more secure passport and look at ways of involving the private sector in the issuing operation.
To take that forward, the agency carried out a review of its business during the following year to secure those changes. The information technology system on which passports were issued was 10 years old; the equipment used to print passports was out of date and becoming increasingly difficult to maintain; and the passport did not contain the latest modern security features. A new passport design was therefore needed to provide greater security. The new passport has a range of added security features, including a digital image of the holder and the holder's signature under a high-security laminate.
The International Civil Aviation Organisation, of which the United Kingdom is a member, set standards for passports, including separate passports for each traveller. The existing passport, in which details of children under 16 could be included on another person's passport without a photograph, does not meet those standards. Some countries—including the United States, Japan, New Zealand, Mexico, Brazil and, from September, Belgium—already insist on separate passports for children. Others have agreed the principle of separate passports, including other EU countries.
The Passport Agency consulted its user group panel about the introduction of separate passports. The change was generally welcomed, particularly by those groups concerned with preventing child abduction. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said various things about the child passport. She said that we should accept for the moment that it is acceptable to introduce the child passport, but she certainly used the word "barmy", and I think that she was describing the issuing of the child passport as barmy.
One of the organisations that made strong representations to the Government in favour of the introduction of child passports—including and especially passports for babies—was the all-party child abduction group. I have with me the list of members of the group and there are 21 Conservatives on it. I do not know whether the list is inaccurate, but all I can say to the right hon. Lady is that, four names from the bottom, under "W", her name appears. If she wants to correct the record and deny that she is a member I shall of course be happy to hear from her. A group of which she is a member called repeatedly for us to introduce child passports to reduce the incidence and risk of child abduction.

Miss Widdecombe: Perhaps the Home Secretary will answer the question that I clearly put to him. Even given


that there might be a case for that measure, why was it necessary to introduce it at the same time as he was introducing new technology? Hansard will show that I said postpone, not abandon.

Mr. Straw: Silence and a change of subject equals consent. The right hon. Lady is a member of that group and she was associated with the calls to introduce passports for children, including babies, as quickly as possible. Now, she is trying to resile from that.

Mrs. Helen Brinton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Straw: If my hon. Friend will hang on, I shall give way in a moment.

Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I am answering the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald.
I shall explain why we decided to introduce those changes with effect from 1 October 1998. I may say that the only issue raised by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), when my hon. Friend the Minister announced them in April 1998 was cost. I shall deal with that issue. There has been some insinuation that we have introduced the measure only to make money. That is completely incorrect. The cost to the applicant of a child's passport is £11, albeit that such a passport lasts for only five years rather than for 10. The cost of processing the application is £21, which is the same as that for processing an adult passport.
Although the old passport was available for 10 years, we also ensured that the cost of a child passport was reduced from £18 to £11. We fixed a figure of £11 because that was being charged to amend an existing passport to include children.
We decided to introduce the changes at this time because we were changing many of the administrative procedures; that included simplifying the application form. If we were to introduce a new information technology system, it was important for it to be durable. It could not involve arrangements whereby at one moment children could be included on other people's passports, and at another moment they could not.
I understand why the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald asked whether we could have suspended the issue of child passports. That is an entirely fair question, which I raised at an early stage, as did my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. That was not possible: it would have led to more problems than it would have solved.

Mr. Richard Allan: I do not disagree with the Home Secretary on the general point about child passports, but I hope that he will accept another correction. In 1997–98, the full economic cost of

a child passport to the passport service was £9.94. The £21 is the amount charged to an ordinary applicant; the cost of processing an application is far less than that.

Mr. Straw: I think that the cost of processing a child application is now higher than the cost of the passport itself—but I shall ensure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary responds.

Mr. Hogg: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: I promised to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton).

Mrs. Brinton: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way.
I was very interested by the comments of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), and by the fact that she had been a member of the all-party group on child abduction. As the current vice-chair of that group, I should like to reassure my right hon. Friend that we called for the passports, and we welcome the passports.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that she also represents a large number of passport office staff, and that she will wish to be associated with the thanks that I now put on record for all the work that they have done.

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Gerald Howarth: rose—

Sir Peter Emery: rose—

Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has been very persistent, so I will give way to him.

Mr. Hogg: I actually wanted to ask what I hoped might be a useful question. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are always useful."] Indeed, they are always useful, and even perhaps helpful.
One of the problems relates to recently expired passports. It is, I think, within the discretion of the Home Secretary to devise ways in which a recently expired passport can be extended. For example, would it not be possible to authorise police stations to extend the current validity of a passport, and would it not be possible to agree with other countries to receive travellers with recently expired passports? I strongly suspect that, if it were necessary to introduce legislation rapidly to make either of those things possible, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) would help the Home Secretary.

Mr. Straw: I have taken many interventions from the right hon. and learned Gentleman during my time on the Government Benches—and, indeed, when I sat on the other side of the Chamber. Some are helpful and constructive, as were his amendments—stimulated amendments—to the Human Rights Act 1998. This latest intervention is also helpful.
As I have said, there are already arrangements for extending the validity of passports, and they have helped, but I am not sure that it would be possible to make arrangements for police stations to extend passports. One of the problems is security—not security within the police stations, but ensuring that a proper record is kept at every stage. I shall examine the possibilities, however, and write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Sir Peter Emery: rose—

Mr. Howarth: rose—

Mr. Straw: Many other Members wish to speak. I have already accepted about three times as many interventions from the opposite Benches as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, and I now wish to complete my speech.
Let me say more about the IT system, and the problems that have arisen. Testing of the new system was completed in time for it to be introduced on a pilot basis in the Liverpool office on 5 October, and in the Newport office six weeks later. The pilot started in the low season for UKPA business, so that disruption to customers could be minimised. However, two significant problems then arose.
First, the new working processes, which involved additional checking, required more staff than was envisaged. That is true both for the parts of the system operated by the private sector and for the parts operated by the agency.

Miss Widdecombe: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: I will give way to the right hon. Lady in a moment, if she will just listen to the explanation.
Secondly, some loss of output was expected in the pilot's early stages and was built into the project plans, not least the provision for making the changes in the autumn quiet season and for staffing changes. However, loss of output was greater than the agency anticipated. Despite that, more than 1 million of the new, more secure passports have been issued on the new system. A recent independent audit has confirmed that the new system's design is sound.
I in no sense minimise the problems and disruption that have been caused to individuals by the difficulties in the passport office, but output since April—since we put the action plan in place—has risen consistently and is now running at record levels: about 150,000 passports a week.
The Passport Agency increased the number of passport examiners by 250 through recruitment and promotion. Staff throughout the agency have been working high levels of overtime at weekends and in the evenings. However, it is now obvious that the roll-out is lasting longer than the agency expected, and that more staff are required than the agency envisaged at the planning stage.
On children's passports—the following point is important, too—applications were initially rather less than expected when the new changes came into force in October 1998. That may have given false reassurance to the agency. The agency went to considerable lengths to

get outside advice from Government statisticians about the likely level of applications from and in respect of children. As it happens, for some months after the introduction of the change, the level of applications was lower, rather than higher, than anticipated,
I point out two things to those who are concerned about the idea of a baby's photograph being put on a passport. First, of the 400,000 voluntary applications for children's passports, quite a number have been in respect of babies. Secondly, although we all understand that a photograph of a baby may not provide the same identity two or three years later—in some cases, even a few months later—the immigration service and all the child abduction pressure groups say that the totality of the evidence provided by a passport provides far better reassurance and security checking than a simple name on someone else's passport ever does.

Sir Peter Emery: rose—

Mr. Gerald Howarth: rose—

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald wished to ask a question.

Miss Widdecombe: It seems that, in that explanation, the right hon. Gentleman has confirmed what we said earlier—there was a coincidence, which I now realise, given the timetable that he has set out, was even closer than I thought. In October, it became law that children had to have their own passports and, again in October, the first experiments were tried. Why were two brand new burdens put on the Passport Agency at exactly the same time? That was underlying all the questions that I asked earlier. I still have not had an answer to that one.

Mr. Straw: I have given the right hon. Lady an answer. There has never been the least secret about the fact that the change in the application arrangements for children's passports was introduced at the same time as changes in the procedures and the pilot IT system. The two were designed to be integrated, and for good reasons. It was much more cost-effective to do that. As we were making changes to the system by which passports were produced—which will, I hope, last for many years—it made sense at the same time to make changes in the application procedure, which, in respect of children, simplify the procedure; there is one application for each person, not one application that may include a number of other people.

Sir Peter Emery: rose—

Mr. Howarth: rose—

Mr. Straw: No. That was the last intervention.
As I have explained, as it happened, the application levels in respect of children in the first five or six months of the new pilots being rolled out were lower, rather than higher, than we anticipated. Since April, however, the intake of applications for both children and adults has shown a significant rise—well in excess of normal seasonal trends. Current figures show intake 40 per cent. higher than last year. If that pattern continues, this year's intake will be the highest ever.
The agency tells me that intake is expected to fall sharply at some stage next month and that it will then be able to deal quickly with the arrears. It tells me—I expect this to be achieved—that the time for clearing properly completed applications will be down to 10 days by the end of September. With the extra staff now being brought in, the agency expects to be able to hold that level of performance in future.
The agency has quite rightly deferred plans to roll out the new system into the remaining offices until the arrears are cleared this autumn. It is not true, as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has tried to insinuate, that, once the system had been set in train, no alterations were made to the programme to take account of the increase in demand. We have had to make sensible changes to the arrangements to ensure that demand can be coped with.

Mr. Andrew Miller: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his detailed explanation. I am sure that my constituents will welcome his observations. It is a pity that I did not get an apology when I had to queue all the way round Liverpool passport office, but that was under the previous Administration. I do not remember any apology or any explanation on the record to the House.

Mr. Straw: It is doubtful whether my hon. Friend would ever have received an apology from a Minister because, as I said earlier, Ministers under the previous Administration were seeking to evade responsibility and, so far as they could, never to say they were sorry.
The current backlogs have resulted in severe problems with the telephone service. People are understandably anxious when they have submitted their applications some time ago and have not heard anything, so there has been a significant but understandable surge in inquiries by telephone and fax. In May alone, the agency recorded more than 1.5 million calls, many of which have gone unanswered. The agency has had to make the difficult operational decision between using staff to answer the telephone or to concentrate on passport issuing to ensure that passports are received in time to travel. It has chosen to do the latter, but I acknowledge the anxiety and frustration that has resulted, and so does the agency.
Steps are now being taken to provide an adequate telephone service for passport inquiries. I am sorry to say that those changes will be too late to deal with the current problems. We do know that once turnround times are brought down to 10 days, call volumes will drop dramatically, to levels at which the agency can provide an acceptable service. By the autumn, the agency should have brought the present unsatisfactory situation under control and the extra staff should enable lasting improvements to be made.
The framework document to which I referred earlier is due for review later this year. The current chief executive, David Gatenby, who has been in post since 1994, told the Home Office late last year of his decision to retire this summer. A new chief executive, Mr. Bernard Herdan, has been appointed to take up his post on 1 October. One of his first tasks will be to conduct the review of the framework document. There will be a substantial independent element in that review and Ministers will be taking a close interest in its outcome.
I should like to pay tribute to the staff of the agency. They have worked extraordinarily long hours in difficult circumstances to ensure that travel needs are met. I thank the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald for her tribute to the staff. This, at least, is not remotely a party issue. As the right hon Lady and I have seen—as have many of my right hon. and hon. Friends—the staff have shown extraordinary good humour in difficult circumstances.

Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No. I am just at the end of my speech.
I acknowledge that this has been a difficult year for the agency's customers and for the agency itself, for the reasons I have outlined. Despite the difficulties, the agency has continued to meet the travel needs of the vast majority of its customers. In recent weeks, it has not delivered the very high level of service to which the agency and I are committed and which the House expects. I should like to assure the House that firm action is being taken to put the agency's performance back on track and to resolve the difficulties that I have outlined to the House today. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Richard Allan: I should like to start my contribution by echoing the comments of the Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) in praise of the staff at the Passport Agency. My constituency employees, in common with those of many other hon. Members, have found them extremely courteous when dealing with individual cases. My staff have made some firm friends in the Passport Agency, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate at Croydon and the Child Support Agency over the many happy hours that they have spent on the telephone together dealing with my constituents' business.
The Home Secretary worried all of us by suggesting that bad luck in the Home Office comes in fours. The right hon. Lady cited three instances, and we are left wondering what the fourth could be. Perhaps it is the Home Secretary's plan to place criminal record checks in the hands of the Passport Agency, to add to its work load. That decision was taken on the basis of its
proven track record of discreet delivery of a large application driven service"—[Official Report, 14 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 356.]—
and in particular recognition of its
experience of procuring information technology using public-private partnership arrangements which will be appropriate for the setting up of the CRB".—[Official Report, 16 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 159.]
The Liberal Democrats feel that the proven track record of the agency's ability to set up a new IT system must be called into question in the context of the Criminal Records Bureau.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I notice that the Liberal Democrat amendment has a specific reference to the IT problems. Have any lessons been learned from the computerisation in Lunar house? Are we satisfied that the consultancies involved have been up to the mark? Can we discover who they are?

Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. There are two computer systems. The current


Administration signed up to the Passport Agency's computer system with Siemens business systems in July 1997, so must take some of the responsibility. They should have learned some lessons from the introduction of the system in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate at Lunar house. That contract was signed by the previous Administration in 1996, and has caused equal if not worse problems.
Indeed, there seems to be a conspiracy to fill up the country. The IND at Croydon is unable to give foreign nationals their passports back so that they can leave the country, and the Passport Agency is unable to give British nationals passports so that they can leave the country. Some important lessons could be learned about the management of IT contracts by government at both venues, and I hope that the Government will take them on board.

Mr. Maclean: I am following carefully what the hon. Gentleman says. Has he seen the press release issued by the National Audit Office, which confirms his remarks? The NAO examined the Home Office computerisation programme, and one of its recommendations is:
Departments should consider whether a proposed project might be too ambitious to be attempted at one go.

Mr. Allan: That is an interesting report by a worthy body. As a former IT professional, I take a close interest in these matters. With Government systems—many others have similar problems—hope triumphs over reality. Agencies and organisations try to meet over-ambitious efficiency targets, and they lay off staff ahead of a new computer system that is intended to make savings. A commercial company would not risk doing that. A large utility running a similar business would not take the risks that monopoly suppliers, such as the Passport Agency, have taken.

Mr. Mark Todd: I too was an IT professional before I entered the House. The experience on this and other projects is that basic disciplines, such as risk analysis before entering a project, project management, clear accountability for running a project, and appropriate contingency planning seem to be missing in the public service.

Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman has outlined a set of good remedial measures, and I hope that they are being noted for future computer projects.
I have been disappointed by the Government's response to the concerns that have been raised by the Passport Agency—until today, when the Home Secretary has at least come to the Dispatch Box with some form of apology. I was disappointed in their earlier responses, which seemed to shoot the messenger and blame the customer. The Government's view was that if they did not tell people about the problem, it would go away. Their ostrich-like approach has clearly been shown to have failed. Other hon. Members will have had constituents with problems similar to those that exist now, way before any publicity was given to the issue. The problem existed and was shown to be building up for many months. Delays to the average processing time increased month on month.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) wrote to the Home Office as long ago as April this year, dragging the problem to its attention and seeking a remedy. However, little action was taken until June, when the first recruitment of extra staff took place.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I actually wrote at the end of March and in early April, and perhaps that prompted the Home Secretary to take the initiative. At that time, people at the Liverpool office were desperate and asked me to do all that I could to get some improvement. We have heard that 300 members of staff were put in quite late. Why was there no action in March—when I and, probably, other hon. Members wrote—to put people into the Liverpool office?

Mr. Allan: My hon. Friend is right. Early action would have saved the Passport Agency money and saved a large number of constituents huge distress.
In May, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—on behalf of the Liberal Democrats—acted as an early-warning system for the problems by tabling parliamentary questions, and by publicising the fact that there was a problem with the delays and that the average processing time had increased.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Is the point that the hon. Gentleman is now making about his right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred to in the first line of the Liberal Democrat amendment, in which it claims that
the Liberal Democrats first exposed the problems at the Passport Agency at the end of May"?
Questions were being raised in this House from March onwards about the problems, some of which have been mentioned. For instance, I made a speech on the Floor of the House on 26 May—but I would never be immodest enough to table a motion that referred to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire first exposing the problem at the Passport Agency at the end of May.

Mr. Allan: I admire the modesty of the hon. Gentleman. We are referring to work done by this party which was widely publicised in the national press. In the context of this debate, we felt that it was important to make sure that the House was aware of the work that had been done. I take nothing away from all hon. Members who have worked on this matter. I particularly give full credit to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald for her cruise missile strike against the Government today. In this debate, we join her in criticising the Government in the strongest possible terms, in an attempt to achieve some joined-up opposition.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—who, I believe, is a good friend of the right hon. Lady—was a prophet, a Nostradamus of our time. In the UK Passport Agency framework document of May 1996, he stated in the foreword that the agency faced "a challenging period." Clearly, the right hon. Lady is in place now to make the challenges.
We looked at the problems, in common with many other hon. Members, earlier this year. We were able to show that the applications in March 1999 amounted to a backlog that was 32 per cent. higher than one year beforehand, and that the problem had been growing month


on month. We noticed in particular that problems existed at the Liverpool office; as a Member representing a northern constituency, I am especially sensitive to problems at the Liverpool office.
We sought to draw these matters to the attention of the Government, who gave what we felt was a negative response from 31 May until 2 June, when it was said that an extra 300 staff would be recruited. Since then, only one of the six Passport Agency offices has seen its average processing times reduced. In five out of the six offices—on the Passport Agency's own figures—the average processing time is longer now than it was four weeks ago. We now have a backlog of more than 500,000, compared with only 220,000 in March.

Sir Robert Smith: The Home Secretary alluded to statistics projecting a higher demand earlier in the trial. When the statistics were undershot, alarm bells did not ring about the pent-up demand that would come later. Perhaps the undershooting was misread as a reassurance that there would not be as much of a problem as previously thought.

Mr. Allan: The problem is the lack of slack and contingency planning to allow for variations. The agency has been under tremendous pressure to make efficiency savings—of 24.5 per cent. from 1995–96 to 1997–98—so it has considered any chink of light and been glad to cut costs anywhere, rather than allowing any slack in the system. A system that fails to deliver has not made efficiency savings: it has made cash savings that have turned out to be inefficiency savings.
We are concerned about those who have missed their travel dates. According to a parliamentary answer from the Home Office, there were 95 such cases in all in 1998–99. There have been 50 so far this year. We are concerned also about those who did not declare a travel date, because it is quite common not to do so.
Fifty may sound like a small number, but it represents 50 families whose holidays have been ruined, or people who may have failed to make important engagements abroad. The individuals concerned should be compensated. Another parliamentary answer said that the Passport Agency's current policy is to reimburse, by an ex gratia payment, the reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by customers as a direct consequence of clear operational errors or failure to provide an acceptable level of services; that each case is considered carefully on its merits; and that it is not the agency's normal policy to make compensation for distress and inconvenience arising from such errors and failures.
Is that still the case? People will be especially interested to know whether there will be compensation for distress and inconvenience, which will in many cases have been considerable. How have the budgets been revised for compensation? In 1998–99, 74 per cent. more was paid in compensation than in 1997–98. What might the total be for this year? That money is being wasted, in the sense that it should never have needed to be paid.
The Home Office has offered several reasons for the problems that we do not accept. Passports for children serve a useful purpose in preventing abduction. I noted earlier that my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) has a child on his passport. The line adding the child strikes me as

easily forged, so having a separate document will bring real benefits. It is astonishing, however, that effective preparations for the change were not put in place. There is no excuse for the Passport Agency failing to deliver it effectively.
I have heard anecdotally that one problem that has arisen is that when one child is issued a passport, the other children in the family want one too. Such human factors could and should have been taken into account.
We do not believe that it is reasonable to blame the IT system. It is traditional on the telephone to blame the computer.

Miss Widdecombe: If one can get through.

Mr. Allan: I will come to that in a minute, as I am quite exercised about the unacceptable standard of service on the telephone.
How much were Siemens and Security Printing Systems fined, or is it like the Immigration and Nationality Directorate system, in which no fine is levied but the company does not get paid when the system is not running effectively? The system is working, but not as well as it should.
I know that the Home Secretary has an interest in freedom of information, but I hope that he will not cloak this problem of genuine public concern in a cloud of commercial confidentiality. People who hand over £21 or £31 have a right to understand how that money is spent and whether it is spent well. I hope that commercial confidentiality will not be trotted out as an excuse for not revealing how Siemens has suffered for failing to reach contractually arranged targets.
How much has been levied on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate contract, where the problems have been even more extreme? A pattern is evident that needs to be examined as a whole. It is not enough simply to take each information technology system in isolation, as the lessons will apply to the delivery of any such system.
High seasonal demand was one of the original reasons put forward to explain the delays. That is a "leaves on the track" argument and is unacceptable. High seasonal demand is a recurrent feature. A person who telephones British Gas with a complaint in the middle of winter is not told that the high demand for gas in winter means that the complaint cannot be satisfied. Responses such as that from any of the comparable utilities would put them out of business. One of the matters needing attention is the extent to which a monopoly supplier can extend periods of inefficiency because people have no choice of supplier.

Mr. MacShane: The demand for passports has risen by nearly 200,000 since 1997. Does not that show that people are happier under a Labour Government, that they want to travel more and that they have the money to do so? It is not a matter of seasonal demand, but of our Government's success.

Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman has his view, but others may suggest that people are fleeing from the present condition of the country. I do not want to get into that debate, but the Government should have been able to plan for the happiness factor when they took office. Two years ago, they should have anticipated the wealth that they were going to create, and required the Passport


Agency to issue more passports. Whatever the real cause of the delays—the hot summer weather or the Government's successes or failures—it is no longer acceptable to cite seasonal demand as the reason for the failure properly to deliver public services.
The utility providers do not behave in this way any more, because regulators monitor their operations, yet Ministers are ready to attack any other provider of a core service that fails to deliver. When the train services fail to meet their targets, Ministers line up to criticise them. They levy fines and believe that the system of regulation governing those providers should be strengthened. We agree about that, but why should the Passport Agency be exempt from the general structure? A target is a target, and there are penalties if it is not achieved.

Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I had a question that I wanted to ask the Home Secretary, but he had become rather exhausted and would not take it. Given that the Home Secretary accepts responsibility for what has gone wrong—and the number of things that have gone wrong, for which he has also accepted responsibility, is really rather large—does not the hon. Gentleman think that the time may have come for the right hon. Gentleman to expect a penalty to be imposed on him?

Mr. Allan: Certainly. One of the more depressing aspects of the matter is that it seems that the compensation and fines that are paid or levied will be added to the customer's costs. Passport applications will therefore cost more, which is unacceptable. The Passport Agency is self-funding, but its structure needs examination if a more rigorous system, ensuring that standards are met and not resiled from, is to be achieved. We must make sure that customers do not end up paying for the failure of the service provider.
I shall close with several suggestions for ways forward to deal with what I consider to be the key priorities, but first the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) seems very keen to intervene.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Incompetent planning was mentioned earlier, and it is clear that, whatever the reason, the planning was appalling and left much to be desired. Does the hon. Gentleman know whether the Government's estimates take account of the pound's strength on the foreign exchanges? Is not that likely to increase the number of people wanting to go abroad and therefore applying for passports? Should not the Government say whether the exchange rate was incorporated in estimates of the number of passports that will be demanded?

Mr. Allan: I am amazed by the number of wider factors that can be introduced to this debate. It might be even more dangerous to discuss currencies and exchange rates, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, than it would have been to debate the more general economic conditions mentioned by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane).
I want to offer the Home Secretary some positive pointers towards key improvements. First, there should be a telephone call centre. People come to our surgeries

because they cannot get through on the telephone. Again and again people say that they are sorry to bother us, but they have been on the phone for hours. They are not exaggerating, and that is not acceptable. Utilities set strict targets, answering 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. of calls within a specified number of rings. The targets are monitored, and the regulator checks them. Anything less than the target is deemed unacceptable.
Setting up a call centre system would bring considerable savings to the Passport Agency. We have been told that one way around the problem is to write to the agency, but I cannot believe, given the modern technology of 1999, that answering letters can be cheaper than answering telephone calls. The Passport Agency would save money by having a call centre in which people with computers could answer basic queries about the progress of an application, preventing people whose applications relate to August and September from queueing, as the Under-Secretary wishes them not to do. The problems would be greatly reduced if people could simply get through on the telephone.
The cost of a modern call centre should not be inordinate. The utilities, for example, with their high seasonal demand, can spill over from one call centre to another. The hon. Member for Rotherham would surely agree that south Yorkshire is an excellent site for a call centre, as the area is already developing centres in abundance.
We must also offer guaranteed service targets for processing times. The number of days before travel at which the passport will arrive is critical to the applicant. It is not acceptable to tell a customer that he or she will receive documents before travel, but that they may arrive one or two days before. We cannot tolerate that level of service, as it would generate queries and personal applications. The agency should be able to say that, if people have applied four weeks ahead of the date of travel, the passport should be guaranteed to arrive at least a week ahead. I hope that the Government can accept that target, as well as learning lessons about the information technology contracts and making improvements for the future.
Has there been any progress on consideration of a photocard passport, as mentioned in the agency's report for 1997-98, following the introduction of the photocard driving licence? It seems bizarre that someone who has obtained a passport at great expense and trouble, and who is travelling only within the European Union, will have the passport checked in the most cursory way. We have abolished embarkation controls. The airlines check passports because of carriers' liability, but documents are not checked in detail.
Security issues arise over the issuing of full 10-year passports to people who take only an occasional trip within the European Union. A proper balance must be struck between the desire for secure border controls and the issue of documents that are unnecessarily inconvenient to the customer and a risk to security. The Home Secretary said that the Passport Agency deals with one of the greatest volumes of demand in the world, and that is probably because we have so much intra-European Union travel. Yet, almost exceptionally within the EU, we require a full passport. Following the removal of the one-year British visitors passport, have the Government done any work on alternative documents for travel within the EU?
I hope that the Minister will respond to those substantive points, and I am grateful to him for coming to the Dispatch Box with an apology.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the way in which he has dealt with the issue and explained to the House and the country the reasons for the problems that the UK Passport Agency has encountered. I also congratulate him on offering a reasonable apology to everyone concerned for what happened at the agency.
Like many other hon. Members, I have received representations from constituents who have had difficulties in obtaining their passports. With the exception of one, all the representations that I made have been accepted and my constituents have received their passports in time to meet dates for holidays or business trips. Therefore, I must also offer my congratulations, as my right hon. Friend and others have done, to the staff of the UK Passport Agency for their work in the past four or five weeks to deal with the problems that they have encountered. I know for a fact that the chief executive and other senior members of staff have been working long hours to try to resolve the problems that have faced the agency recently.
I visited the passport office in London a few months ago. I was concerned about the number of fraudulent applications for passports—I understand that about 1,400 instances of people applying for passports illegally have been discovered by the agency in the past year. We should never lose sight of that problem. We must have tight control over applications for passports to ensure that only bona fide applicants receive them. There must be tremendous pressure on that section of the UK Passport Agency that ensures that passports are vetted to such a degree that people do not obtain them fraudulently or illegally. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will insist that that issue is a prime concern of the agency.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who, I understand, has been involved with the agency ever since the problem emerged and has updated Members of Parliament on the way in which the issue has been handled. My hon. Friend and members of his Department did not relax their efforts to ensure that people who had applied for passports received them in time to depart on holiday or on business.
The queues have been mentioned this afternoon and we should clear up that problem. I was disappointed in the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who was reluctant to give way to Labour Members. She intervened on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, no fewer than six times. The right hon. Lady made a full contribution—40 minutes at the Dispatch Box—and intervened on other speeches, but was reluctant to give way when Labour Members tried to intervene. That was most unreasonable. Although the right hon. Lady has said that she is a reasonable person, she did not demonstrate that this afternoon.
The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) is no longer in his place, but he said that he has seen queues only on a Tuesday. That is because he only passes the

office on a Tuesday. If he had been there on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday, he would have witnessed the queues. In my experience, there have been queues for the past 16 years; queueing has always been with us. We are concerned that the queues have lengthened, but people have always gone to the passport office to pick up a passport for the same day, or within 24 or 48 hours. Queueing has always been an accepted way to obtain a passport. However, we should now try to ensure that there should be no reason whatever for queueing. As a result of our debate on this important matter, I hope that we can find a way to prevent queueing at the passport office.

Mr. Maclean: A few years ago, I used to live in that area. There were short queues during the summer months, but nothing on the scale that we have seen recently. Is it not true that people queued at Petty France because, in the past, one could obtain a passport quickly? It was a convenient way to get a passport on the same day. People now have to queue because they cannot get a passport by any other means—the normal, conventional means of writing to the passport office.

Mr. O'Brien: I challenge that point. People who are queueing today, and who queued yesterday and the day before, did so because they wanted their passports urgently. People present their case early in the morning and are allowed to return in the afternoon to collect their passports; indeed, some people collect their passports there and then.
Although I accept that there is a problem and that that is unsatisfactory, we should remember that there has always been a problem. People have always presented themselves at the office to get a passport urgently. We should have a system in which, if people need a passport urgently, they can obtain one urgently, without having to queue outside the passport offices. The inclement weather gives rise to a further concern; no one wants people to queue in the rain to obtain a passport—or for any other purpose. When my right hon. Friend considers the future of the Passport Agency and the distribution of passports, I hope that he will try to ensure that people do not have to queue outside the offices at all.
There must be new information technology to develop the service, but that technology must be secure, as well as ensuring that the service is speeded up. It is rather sad that the new IT equipment provided by Siemens failed, and has not yet been put right. One of the problems that we face at present is that we relied too much on that new technology at two offices. It has not delivered the service that the Passport Agency wanted.
The Government's amendment notes that we must maintain security at all times. I prefaced my contribution to the debate by pointing out that I was concerned about security a few months ago. I visited the passport office and witnessed some of the illegal and fraudulent means that people use to obtain passports. The staff are to be congratulated on finding out about those frauds. The Government's amendment makes the only reference to security in our agenda for the debate.
I appeal to the House: if we sincerely want to find a way forward, to reorganise the Passport Agency and to introduce a better system for the future, we should give the Government's amendment our support. I shall support the amendment because it not only outlines but the current


problems refers to the important issue of security. I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the amendment because it offers the best proposal for the Passport Agency.

Mr. James Clappison: My right hon. and hon. Friends deserve many congratulations for raising in an Opposition day debate the subject of delays in the issue of passports, because such delays are a cause of inconvenience, hardship and anxiety to many hundreds of thousands of our constituents. The importance to many people of their annual holiday should not be overlooked; our constituents will want answers to the questions that have been asked today and assurances that lessons have been learned from this sorry episode.
I give credit to the Home Secretary for endeavouring, in the latter part of his speech, to answer some of those questions. It is kinder to draw a veil over his earlier remarks, especially his references to the previous Government. The right hon. Gentleman adverted to agencies, but he appears to have changed his mind about agencies and their responsibilities.

Mr. Straw: indicated dissent.

Mr. Clappison: Well, agencies might be one of the matters on which the right hon. Gentleman has not changed his mind, but there is a long list of subjects on which he has changed his mind since entering government. That long list includes privatisation of prisons—he looks quizzical, but I remember many criticisms of private prisons uttered by the then Labour Opposition. The list also covers subjects such as the right of silence; freedom of information, on which he has recently made a decision; carriers' liability; and employers' liability for checks on illegal immigrants, on which point he has reversed a promise made by the previous Government. As for today's explanation of the Passport Agency's difficulties, the jury is still out—which is another matter on which he has changed his mind.

Mr. Straw: It is of great interest that the Conservatives are having to draft in junior Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to speak from the Back Benches in this debate—that says something. I have not changed my mind about the relationship between agencies and central Government. My position is the same today as it was in opposition: agencies have a role to play, but my concern was and is about the nature of the relationship and about whether Ministers should take responsibility for what went on within agencies in difficult circumstances.

Mr. Clappison: I entirely accept the Home Secretary's statement, but he has to accept that his assertion about agencies stands in stark contrast to the large number of serious constitutional matters on which he has changed his mind and which I have just listed.
The right hon. Gentleman asks why I take an interest in this subject. I have a personal interest, because my wife and children are among those queueing for a passport. Furthermore, a number of my constituents are in the same position. As the right hon. Gentleman knows well, I have

always taken a great interest in the activities of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and I have asked a large number of questions about that organisation in the past; at the most recent session of Home Office questions, I took up that issue with him.
I listened carefully to the Home Secretary's explanation today, but at the end of his speech several questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) remained unanswered. My right hon. Friend asked the important question: why was a decision taken last year to introduce new technology at the same time as a requirement for children to have their own passport?
The Home Secretary has given his reasons for that decision, and it will be for others to judge the weight and the importance of those reasons in the light of subsequent events. In fairness, he must concede at least that, having taken the decision, it was incumbent upon Ministers to be on their guard, to monitor how the new system was bearing up and to take every precaution against the appearance of the familiar glitches that affect new technology.
The right hon. Gentleman admitted today that Ministers became aware of the problem last March. Ministers admitted at the beginning of May, in written answers, that they were aware of operational difficulties. If Ministers were aware as early as March this year that something was going wrong with the issuing of passports, it is reasonable to question whether they did enough to try to prevent the sorts of problems that have arisen involving people and their summer holidays. Many people who listen to or study this debate will draw scant consolation from the Home Secretary's undertaking today that, as a result of the measures now being put in place, people can expect the system to be operating by September. That will be far too late for many of our constituents.
Members of Parliament are privileged in that we have a long summer recess during which we can choose when to take our summer holidays. Of course, hon. Members are busy during the recess performing additional parliamentary duties in their constituencies, but at least we have the opportunity to choose when to take our summer holidays during that relatively long period. Many of our constituents—particularly employees—do not have that facility. They have limited holiday allocations every year and they must take them at a certain time. Our constituents often look forward to their holidays for a long time—many of them book their holidays immediately after Christmas. They have made arrangements and paid for them and their children expect to go on holiday. Therefore, they are in a state of great anxiety when questions arise as to whether they will be able to take their holidays.

Mr. MacShane: If people book their holidays in December and they are aware that they or their children require passports, why can they not apply for them in January, February, March or April?

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman must concede that members of the public could reasonably expect to have received their passports much sooner. I listened to the hon. Gentleman's rather curious explanation as to why more people are holidaying abroad. I have mentioned my family, but I am not pleading my own case because we


may take only a short break abroad this year. I enjoy my holiday at the English seaside, and I had a wonderful time last year in Devon. I shall not take any lectures from the hon. Gentleman and new Labour about where I should spend my summer holidays. We are as likely to find followers of new Labour at the English seaside as we are to see the Minister for the Cabinet Office travelling economy class.

Mr. Maclean: I hope that my hon. Friend will condemn more strongly the outrageous comments of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). It is yet another example of the Government trying to blame the public: it is their fault for wanting to go on holiday. Some of my constituents applied for passports last November, in January and in February—and they are still waiting. Blaming the public is grubby and unacceptable and it is beneath the hon. Member for Geneva.

Mr. Clappison: I think I may have been a little harsh with the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). I am sure that he will tell us in due course that he makes an annual trek to the Blackpool illuminations and the sands of Scarborough.

Sir Robert Smith: It is not only holiday makers who are affected. My office received a telephone call today from parents who are extremely worried because their daughter is due to travel abroad on Sunday with a guide trip and she has not yet received her passport. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) made a very important point: the uncertainty is damaging people's holiday plans. People look forward to that yearly event, whether it is a holiday or a guide trip abroad.

Mr. Clappison: We should not underestimate the real hardship and anxiety that the delays will cause. It has prompted people to take days off work in order to make long journeys to passport offices. For example, today's edition of the Evening Standard reports that a man arrived at the London passport office at 2.30 am to get a passport for his six-year-old daughter so that she can travel abroad with her class. We need to take into account how much anxiety the situation is causing our constituents. It is no good our constituents being told that they are panicking. It is understandable that people experience anxiety in those circumstances, especially when they are planning to take their young children abroad—they are not panicking.
We have been reassured that people will be able to telephone passport offices, and there have been calls for more telephone facilities. I hope that those who telephone the passport offices will have more joy than the thousands of overseas visitors who, we hear, were telephoning the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, which is in chaos, to try to get back their passports. In a written answer to me, the Under-Secretary said that every day in March, 42,000 calls were made to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, but only 1,637 were answered. I was also told:
Many calls are repeat calls and, therefore, these statistics must be approached with caution".—[Official Report, 17 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 261.]
The Government draw consolation from that fact.
It is not much consolation to be told that MPs should get in touch with passport offices. When we contacted

the Under-Secretary about the problems experienced by overseas visitors with the IND, he wrote back on 5 March to tell us that
it is disappointing to note that the number of enquiries from MPs has risen over the recent period by a factor of around 25 per cent. As I said in my letter of 12 January, it is to an extent in Members' hands how long it takes IND to return to normal levels of productivity. I would appreciate your help in ensuring that this happens by Easter.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does my hon. Friend share my slight unease that MPs should have that fast-track approach? Of course we are here to help our constituents—in the past few days, I have been able to help a constituent of mine with such a problem, and I am grateful for the help that we received from officials—but what about those members of the public who do not think of approaching their MP, or who have an MP who is not as available or as assiduous as all the hon. Members now present in the Chamber?

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course MPs of all parties will do their best to help their constituents, but we should not rely on MPs having to take up such cases, especially when there are, as we have heard, 500,000 cases outstanding. That merely channels people from one queue to another.
People in the queue will not draw much consolation from the time scale proposed by the Minister in a letter to Members. He has been praised for all the letters that he has written to us. In his letter of 10 June, he concluded:
The problem is only temporary and we believe that it will be resolved in the very near future.
The Minister's time scale will be rather different from that of our constituents, who want to go on their holidays in July and August and for whom it will not be much consolation if the matter is resolved by September.
I do not want to be unkind to the Minister because he has had a lot on his plate. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) referred to the parallel problems in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate concerning overseas visitors who are experiencing delays in getting back their passports. Queues have lengthened in the immigration and asylum system.
As I said to the Minister earlier, he is perfectly fair and does not discriminate: the queue for people trying to get out of the country is as long as that for people trying to stay in the country. The hon. Gentleman has displayed such great aptitude for preventing anybody from going anywhere that he would be a natural candidate for Minister for prison security. Nobody would want to escape because the queue would be too long, and in any case, any would-be escapers would be let out much earlier by the Minister because of early release and tagging schemes.
The hon. Gentleman has parallel queues to deal with. The Government, and above all the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary, need to take on board the fact that this has been a sorry episode and lessons must be learned. It is right for this matter to be raised in the House; it has caused much inconvenience and there must be detailed answers to the questions that have been asked. The problems cause great hardship to many of our constituents. We need Ministers to accept responsibility—rather than to tell us that the public or MPs are to blame—and to analyse where things have gone wrong. They must ensure that lessons are learned from this sorry debacle.

Mr. Denis MacShane: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who made some very good and sensible points.
This has been a useful debate. Despite the fact that we all read that the House of Commons never affects what the Government want to do, I expect that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, would rather that this debate had not taken place. Perhaps it has accelerated some management decisions that needed to be taken.
Now that we are in calmer waters, the queue to speak is much shorter than those outside passport offices, and the Front-Bench cruisers have left the Chamber for a cup of tea—one of them, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, has just returned—perhaps we can discuss the matter seriously. I am glad that we have a Home Secretary who is prepared to say sorry and accept responsibility in the House of Commons. That is one heck of a change from the previous Administration.
It disappointed me that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) did not offer a single solution. She is wallowing in the publicity of going down to the queues in Petty France, but not proposing one—just one—solution. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) proposed some solutions, the hon. Member for Hertsmere proposed some, but the right hon. Lady, who is no longer in her place, did not propose one.
In her attack on the Passport Agency, I was not sure whether the right hon. Lady was demanding that it should be re-nationalised—I wonder whether that is the new Conservative policy—or that it should be totally privatised. Perhaps it can be sold to Harrods and we can all go there to get a passport in a brown paper bag from Mr. Al Fayed.
We should set this debate in a slightly broader context. A century ago, it would not have happened; we did not need passports then. When Palmerston said 150 years ago that all people had to say was "Civis Britannicus sum" and the might of Britain would defend them, one did not have to carry a passport. Passports are a product of 20th century state bureaucracy and were introduced after the first world war.
My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), whose remarks deserve careful attention, talked about security. As a country, we are a shining example to the rest of the world in that we do not demand any papers or passports from citizens of a sovereign country—the Republic of Ireland—whose policies have often opposed our own. I remember going on holiday there regularly as a boy—I still go on holiday there. One of course does not need any papers to enter the country. I wish that passports protected our country from the problems of drugs or terrorism, but I am afraid that such evidence is scant.
Ernie Bevin, our great Foreign Secretary, said that he dreamed of the day when a British citizen could go to Victoria station and buy a ticket to anywhere in the world without worrying about papers. Passports have always been a sensitive issue for politicians in this country. According to Mr. Tony Benn—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must remember that we refer to Members by their constituencies.

Mr. MacShane: In his diary entry of a Cabinet meeting in 1978, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), whom some of us will be very sorry to see leave this place, recorded that, when it was first proposed that the European-style passport would replace the old, blue, stiff, leather board passport, my noble Friend Lord Shore said that it would be introduced over his dead body. I am glad to say that Lord Shore is alive and well and still fighting the great anti-European cause in another place.
I have one of those old stiff blue leather passports, for the simple reason that I once turned up in a Gulf state because my plane broke down coming back from Australia, and I found that, because my passport had the stamp of Israel in it, I was not allowed in. Everyone else was put up in a Hilton and given lots of nice food and drink for 48 hours; I was stuck in the airport. I was able to get a second British passport—I do not know whether that is still possible.
If one goes to funny countries, one can get a second passport. [Laughter.] That was true for South Africa. Hon. Members may laugh, but many exporters from this country faced that problem. It is a genuine problem, which does not deserve to be treated with flippancy by Opposition Members.
The Passport Agency managed to lose my passport and birth certificate five years ago, so I am not necessarily its biggest fan.
What are the causes of the present problem? Hon. Members enjoyed themselves when I gently suggested that an extra 200,000 people applying this year was a tribute to the fact that British citizens enjoy their holidays abroad. They have a stronger pound, and more of them are in work. I do not know whether that can be factored into the way in which the Passport Agency plans its activities, but it certainly was not.
The British visitors passport was withdrawn by the previous Government. That was the automatic passport for many of my constituents. They went to the post office, showed their birth certificate, got their pink passport and off they went on their holidays. My purpose is not to lay blame, but the withdrawal of a popular and much-used travel document without the introduction of adequate replacement mechanisms cannot be attributed to the present Government.
There is the further problem of children requiring a separate passport. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald is not in her place. I thought that she was flippantly irresponsible in her handling of the subject. Each year, 120 children are abducted. To say that a baby's picture on the passport is no hindrance to anyone planning an abduction is nonsense. The children cannot simply be put on the parent's passport. A husband or wife who wants to take the children out of the country must go through the procedure of getting a separate passport for each child. That must help to slow down an extremely serious problem. The right hon. Lady dealt with it with disgraceful flippancy.
The computer contract was drawn up under the previous Administration. Perhaps my right hon. Friend should not have signed it, but I pay tribute to him for being honest and communicating with hon. Members. He has done his best. I have had problems in my constituency—

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. How honest was it to distribute a photograph and say that there was good news—there were no queues round the passport offices last Friday?

Mr. MacShane: I am not responsible for what the Liverpool Daily Post publishes. I recall queueing up at Petty France in the 1970s and 1980s to get a passport.
The problem is that some exceptional cases have arisen. It is also linked to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate problem, and reflects the extent to which London has become a great global city in recent years. There are 100,000 French people working in the UK. We open our arms to them. People from abroad work in our country on a scale that was not envisaged five or 10 years ago. That explains the number of people applying for passports or applying to have their passports renewed. Unlike the isolationist, anti-European, xenophobic Conservative party, I welcome the fact that we have many foreigners working in Britain and that many of our citizens want to travel to Europe and elsewhere.

Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that the problem may grow, rather than reduce, with increasing globalisation. Can we ever reach a point at which there will be no queues, we have a genuinely efficient system and we stop blaming one Government or another? What are his ideas for achieving that?

Mr. MacShane: As they say in "Under Milk Wood", I am coming to that.
I have here my mobile phone—switched off, Mr. Deputy Speaker—which is on the One2One network; hon. Members should try getting through on it at any time of the day or night. We can have all the call centres in the world, but there will still be huge queues.
The real problem is that the Conservative party has enjoyed the problems created by what is undoubtedly a worrying situation. I ask all hon. Members to put their hands on their hearts. I wanted to intervene on the hon. Member for Hertsmere to ask how many individual cases have been referred to him. I have had cases referred to me, and I have tried to sort them out. I had such cases last year and the year before, and I had them when he was a Minister. I expect that I shall have them for years to come.
The almost total absence of Conservative Members from the debate shows that the problems have not been quite as they have recounted, but we should move to discussing real solutions that might work. I return to an exchange that I had with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary at the previous Home Office questions. We should consider whether the time has come for Britain to issue voluntary national identity cards. That relates to what the hon. Member for Hallam said about a travel document.

Mr. Allan: I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I am not in favour of identity cards. I was referring to the Passport Agency's own document, which says that
Ministers indicated their wish to pursue the introduction of a photocard passport
on the back of the driving licence, which is a photocard. I was not referring to a separate ID card.

Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman is making a meal of that. Whatever we call it, the purpose of such a card

would be to provide proof of identity. People can travel from the United States into Canada or Mexico using a driver's licence, which has a photograph on it and is a slightly more secure document than our driver's licence. In much of the rest of Europe, people whizz backwards and forwards across frontiers, just as the citizens of Ireland can come to this country and we can go there without showing papers.
Nearly every citizen in Europe can travel on an ID card. I have two here—I hasten to add that they do not belong to me. The French national identity card is voluntary and issued locally. The German identity card is compulsory, but it records little information. When it is renewed every 10th year, a completely new number is issued. As hon. Members can imagine, the Germans are extremely sensitive about compulsory ID cards. The countries that have voluntary ID cards are France, Austria, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden. Cards are compulsory in other European Union member states. Gibraltar issues an ID card and people can travel on it. It is slightly odd that Britain is so far behind its own colony in issuing ID cards.
This matter was discussed under the previous Government. I refer to the Home Affairs Committee fourth report of 1996, which, in paragraph 31, concluded:
there is a definite benefit to be obtained from use of an ID card as a valid travel card within Europe.
The response of the Government of the day was to accept that recommendation, but nothing was carried forward in their dying days.
There are discussions in Whitehall about a new driver's licence and—although wishes may be ahead of reality and there may not be such a card for some time—slightly more futuristic discussions about a card for social security and perhaps even tax arrangements are taking place. We may have to wait some time, but the driver's licence, if member states would accept it as an ID card, would more than fulfil my requirements.
Last year, I went with my wife to Spain for a wedding anniversary party. I arrived at Heathrow and found that I had forgotten my passport, which was the end of what was meant to be a lovely weekend. Had this country—like Gibraltar, other European countries and the United States—issued a wallet-sized ID card to its inhabitants, I would have been able to fulfil all her dreams and take her away for that happy weekend in Spain, but it could not start for another 24 hours.
A wallet-sized ID card is one solution. Conservative Members have been wallowing in the problem, but the hon. Member for Hallam has proposed another, concrete, solution, as I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and other hon. Members will do. We know that Conservative Members are not keen on British citizens going to Europe because they might learn something. They are locked into isolationism, which is the shame of modern Toryism. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald was so keen to encourage travel that she used to shackle pregnant women to their prison beds. She never once came to the House to say sorry for that.
I applaud my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I admire the willingness of my hon. Friend the Minister to take responsibility—something that never happened under the previous Government. Following the positive welcome for voluntary ID cards that my right hon. Friend offered in the House four weeks ago, will my hon. Friend


set up a working party to take forward the Home Affairs Committee report and consider combining such a card with the driver's licence? That would enable many more of us to have a permanent ID card that would at least allow us to travel in Europe without having to carry or obtain the full British passport.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am delighted to participate in the debate and it is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). This is very much a new Labour issue, although I cannot imagine the average new Labour person, of whom he is a prime example, having such a problem. They all have well-thumbed passports, as I am sure he does. He was good enough to share with us a number of aliases and showed us several cards as well as a riveting array of electronic and other equipment, which he carries about his person. No doubt all that will get him out of a tight corner when necessary—he is a James Bond figure in that respect.
Not all our constituents, and not all the hon. Gentleman's constituents, spend their lives jetting backwards and forwards between this country and Geneva, occasionally being forced to "de-plane" in unpleasant parts of the world other than Geneva. We can imagine the strain that that puts on him and people of his persuasion. As we all know, he is never happier than when travelling to other countries to explain that the Prime Minister loves the euro and that people should not believe everything they read in the English newspapers.
The Home Secretary was uncharacteristically churlish today when trying to explain his role and that of other Ministers in this debacle. He sometimes has to play on a sticky wicket, and there are not many stickier than this particular wicket, but in the past he has come to the House with a certain grace, a certain style and good-humoured willingness to shrug his shoulders and take the blame, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) put it. Today, he came out swinging and took refuge in a great deal of unnecessary and painfully transparent bluster to try to cover over the appalling state of affairs at the Passport Agency.
We must not forget that there are some human stories behind today's debate. Hardly a Member cannot have been contacted by constituents who are sometimes in a state of near panic, and not simply because they want to go on holiday—although for most people in this country, unlike the hon. Member for Rotherham and his new Labour chums, foreign travel is a relatively rare event. They look forward to it throughout the year, save up for it and, in many instances, organise it a long time in advance.
Despite what the hon. Gentleman suggested at one point, we are not talking about irresponsible people who have waited until the last moment to apply for their passports. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said, such people may have booked their holidays many months in advance, and also applied for passports in good time. They then have the galling experience of finding that their cheques have been cashed almost instantly by an otherwise overwhelmed organisation—there is clearly no problem of staff shortage in the section that deals with the cashing of cheques on behalf of the Passport Agency—only for months to go by without a passport appearing.
Only the other day, a lady constituent rang my office. She was really quite distressed. She had applied for a passport for her daughter, who was born in January last year. This is an example of the effects of the new rule that is apparently causing so much of the backlog. She applied in late April; they were going on holiday in the middle of July. I do not think it unreasonable to apply for a passport in April if one knows that one is going on holiday in mid-July.
That lady had heard nothing. She had sent a recorded letter, and had still heard nothing. She had tried telephoning, without success. I think we have heard that some 1.2 million such unsuccessful telephone calls have been made. She rang me in desperation, asking if there was anything I could do. I am pleased to say that, with considerable help from officials, I was able to solve the problem. My constituent has received a passport for her very young daughter, and the family will be able to go on holiday as planned.
Two things make me uneasy, however. The first is the fact that the family had to go through all that simply to obtain a passport. Secondly, as I said earlier, it makes me slightly uneasy when a Member of Parliament, whatever his party, has to become involved in situations such as this—in what ought to be a mundane and purely administrative function. What ought to happen is this: people should send in the form and the money, and, given that everything is in order, the passport should be delivered within a few days. In fairness, the Home Secretary accepts that that is what ought to happen, and he tells us that it is what will happen in due course, when the backlog has been dealt with.
What is worrying is that, for every person in such circumstances who thinks of contacting me, there may be any number in my constituency—and in other hon. Members' constituencies—who have not thought of contacting their Member of Parliament. Others may have thought, as people sometimes do, "I cannot bother my MP about something like this." And how many others have tried to contact MPs who are busy or unavailable, and could not help them?

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Will he also reflect on the position of those who do not approach their MP, but make representations to the authorities, and are enjoined to pay a special and unscheduled visit to the nearest office—and, having done so, incur a considerable cost? Is it not unfair that people who have to make such visits—through no fault of their own—and who may be of modest means should suffer financially as a consequence?

Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend also makes a powerful point, which had not occurred to me thus far. It is said that compensation is available to those whose holidays are ruined as a result of such ineptitude, but what about those who take a day off work and spend that day queuing up at the passport office? The Minister may not have had a chance to think about that, but he may be able to deal with it when he winds up the debate. Is there any thought of compensating those who, having taken time off work, incur expenses such as the cost of travelling from one end of the country to the other, because the queues at Liverpool have allegedly disappeared and they think that they would do better to try their luck there?
We are not talking about people like the hon. Member for Rotherham. We are talking about instances in which, if people take a day off work, someone notices, it makes a difference, and they must make up for it in some way. Their employers may expect them to work an extra day in lieu, or to take a cut in pay. That is a serious situation for people who may have pushed their family budgets to the limit in order to afford a holiday in the first place.
A parallel problem is that of people who have handed their passports to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, for which the Under-Secretary is also responsible. I received a letter from a constituent about this. It concerned a couple—the wife is Slovakian—who deposited their passports with the Home Office in October 1998. My constituent finally got around to writing to me in February this year, saying that the couple had heard absolutely nothing. The letter says:
You cannot ring the Home Office and they have not even had an acknowledgement that their matter is being dealt with and that the Passports have arrived.
Such examples are legion. Another constituent contacted me only this month. Again, the wife was a foreign national, whose original visa had expired. The couple had contacted the Home Office in the usual way, leaving plenty of time. The Home Office replied apologising for the inconvenience—which is at least a step forward—and mentioning renovation works. It added the following galling sentence:
Please do not hesitate to telephone the above number if you need assistance.
Not unreasonably, my constituent thought, "I think I will telephone that number and tell them that I need some assistance." He told me in the letter that he had spent from 8.59 am until 4.5 pm on the day before he wrote to me trying to reach the Home Office. The letter states:
All day I received either the engaged tone or … recorded message.
It continues:
These people are destroying our lives.
We are two legally married people from our Commonwealth. I am and always have been a British citizen.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I am a little confused. Is he talking about the IND or the UKPA? Am I right in thinking that he is talking about the IND?

Mr. Waterson: I am at the moment, but I am describing a parallel problem. If the Minister will allow me, I shall pull all the threads together towards the end of my speech.
My constituent wrote:
I am battling, and winning, my fight with Brain Cancer. I just want a peaceful life living with my wife in my country.
Those are just examples that I pulled out of my mailbag for the purpose of today's debate, but each represents a potential human tragedy. Certainly these are individuals who deserve better, but are not receiving the service that they should be receiving.
On, I think, 24 June we were told that the number of outstanding applications had more than doubled, to more than half a million. We know of instances in which people have waited for more than 12 weeks for passports. As we

have heard, the service has promised that applications involving no problems will be dealt with in 10 days. That applies to straightforward, properly completed applications. I do not think that anyone is suggesting that mistakes or inaccuracies would not quite reasonably cause delays. We have also heard that, in 1997–98, more than 200,000 fewer passports were issued than in the previous year. Given that those figures were calculated before the present crisis, I wonder how accurate they are.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald said in her speech, the real problem has been caused by the fact that two events are happening at the same time. One is the introduction of a new computer system, which is one of the problems that bedevilled the IND; the other is the introduction of the new rules governing children's passports. There is a substantial view—out there in the real world, rather than on the planet Straw—that it is absurd to go through the pantomime of shoving an almost newborn baby into one of those automatic booths, and getting out of the way just in time for the photograph, by which point the baby has slumped on the chair and all that there is a shot of the background. The other point has been made powerfully more than once in the debate. I think that it was Churchill who said that all babies looked the same and they all looked like him, but babies and young children change their looks fast. We are told that the passports will be valid for five years, rather than the usual 10, but, again, in five years, a small child can change its appearance markedly.
Lord Williams of Mostyn, with breathtaking understatement, said that
productivity from the new system has been lower than expected, and arrears of work have built up."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 56.]
He went on to talk about "teething problems". I can do no better than quote from that old Labour organ, The Guardian, whose home affairs editor, Alan Travis, said at the beginning of the month about the current problem:
It comes hard on the heels of the administrative breakdown in the asylum and immigration system. Both crises have been caused by the botched installation of new computer systems".
The great rule in life—and, above all, in politics—is, "When you are in a hole, stop digging", but that is another piece of common sense that seems to be lost on Home Office Ministers. One of the reasons that has been given for the problem is seasonal demand; as someone on the radio said this morning, it is similar to the reason that was given by British Rail for train delays: the wrong kind of snow had fallen. All these clever people, officials and Ministers, have concluded that the British public's irrational and unreasonable desire to have passports, so that they can go on their summer holidays is behind all the problems.

Mr. Robathan: Outrageous.

Mr. Waterson: It is. The suggestion that the problems could not be foreseen is particularly odd.
I think that we have had an assurance that compensation will not involve any increase in the cost of passport applications. That is welcome—it would be helpful if the Minister could reconfirm that. I wonder what Ministers' projections are for the total amount of


compensation. Will the Minister also deal with the excellent intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) about the separate problem of compensating those people who have taken time off work and perhaps paid to travel to Liverpool, Glasgow or wherever to try to ensure that they have their passport in time?
Last October's pilot scheme seems to be where the problems began. By admission, the Home Secretary said that the scheme was tested during a low season. On what possible basis could the success of that pilot be tested against the high pressure period in which we are currently engaged? What projections were made at the time?
It is apparent from what the Home Secretary was saying that Ministers became aware of the problem in late March. I think that he said that an action plan was then devised. All I can say is that that plan has been an unmitigated failure. Will the Under-Secretary perhaps give us a little more detail about where the shortcomings were in the action plan? He and the Home Secretary knew the problem and knew that it was building as early as March this year.
Perhaps I am being a little unfair. Perhaps the problem is all part of what we are asked to consider nowadays as joined-up government. When we left office, British tourism was at a 20-year high. Last year, for the first time in quite a few years, the total number of visits to tourist attractions in this country fell, so perhaps, in reality, the problem is a Department for Culture, Media and Sport initiative to encourage domestic tourism by ensuring that British people have to spend their money on holidays in this country.
I do not mean to be unkind to the Minister, but we all remember our history. When Napoleon was invited to make one of his soldiers a general, his only question was, "Is he lucky?" I am afraid that he is one Minister who, despite his best intentions, extremely hard work and obvious abilities, is simply unlucky. He has had the massive problems of IND with which to contend, which he mentioned in an intervention; now he has massive problems in the Passport Agency. As we approach the Government's reshuffle fairly soon, I wonder whether his talents would not be better deployed in another Department.

Mr. Harry Barnes: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), who used to represent my late uncle Arthur, although, as he had moved from Easington colliery to Eastbourne, I doubt whether he ever voted Conservative.

Mr. Waterson: He had a passport though.

Mr. Barnes: Uncle Arthur probably had the facilities of a passport during the second world war when he served in the air force, but he may not have had a passport later in life.
I do not always attend Opposition day debates, apart perhaps for the opening speeches, because I often think that the topics are not worth getting involved in, but at least today's topic is worthy of discussion and debate.

There has been much knockabout stuff from the Opposition, as might be expected, but it is important that the issue is aired vigorously and that there should be the dialectics of debate, leading, I hope, to improvements in the system and some of the relevant measures.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned agencies and their development, but I am not keen on the move towards them. There are certain similarities between the Passport Agency and other agencies. I think in particular of the problems that hon. Members have had over a considerable time with the Child Support Agency—constituents have not been able to get anyone on the telephone, or to get letters answered, and they have been subject to considerable delay before their cases have been dealt with.
In those cases, hon. Members are expected to act as administrators—as officers and clerks—which is inappropriate. That is not what they should be doing. On behalf of their constituents, they are obliged to pick up the pieces of systems that are not running correctly. Perhaps it is an easy way in which to gain some support from constituents. After all, by making telephone calls, entering into correspondence, or even attending passport offices, they can deliver what their constituents failed to get. Short cuts might be possible when a Member of Parliament takes a matter up.
A constituent with a serious CSA problem is often told by staff at citizens advice bureaux, other support organisations or even by those employed by the CSA, "Why don't you see your local Member of Parliament because he probably has access to certain avenues and will be able to ensure that the matter is progressed faster." To some extent, some of us keep a bit quiet about that because, if we announce that different avenues are available to us, the number of cases that we are likely to get in connection with child support and passports is liable to increase. I have already publicised the Passport Agency, however, by using a local freebie newspaper to illustrate what the problem is, and some of the difficulties that some of my constituents have faced.
We must bear in mind that there are problems with passports, irrespective of the current situation, and that those problems are just increased by the backlog. One of my constituents applied for passports for her two daughters in March. It was only a fortnight ago that she received a passport for the younger child but nothing for the older child. The older child is on the passport of her husband, from whom she is separated. She does not know where her husband lives and is in touch with him only through his parents. She is making efforts to get hold of that passport. She was asked to send a letter explaining the problems, which she did. However, as I understand it, in the meantime, the regulations have been changed and she now has to produce the passport or some evidence that it has been lost—perhaps from the police—before a new passport can be provided. That is just a normal problem.
The application was made in March but, because of the backlog, that problem has only just arisen. The child's holiday has already been delayed and it has now been put back to August. Hopefully, having approached her Member of Parliament, things can now be sorted out. However, there might be a problem with the regulations.
As we have discovered with the CSA, almost any difficulty can emerge. The complexities involved in issuing passports are considerable and, if there is an error


or a problem with the application, it might not be discovered until a week or so before a passport is due to be issued. Many applications are pushed aside, depending on the date of the holiday. That is why matters must be dealt with.
The Home Secretary said that there have been only 50 cases in which passports have not been delivered on time. That is serious. I know that there have been some narrow escapes because one occurred in my constituency. My constituents made use of the partnership scheme operated by the Post Office. They paid £3.20 and should have had their passports delivered within 10 days. A month or so later they had not received them and, two days before they were due to travel, my office discovered the problem.
An arrangement was made for the passport to be received on the morning that the family were due to go on holiday. Given that, there had to be some contingency arrangements. That involved a courier being sent from Liverpool to deliver the passport. The courier left late and the information was passed to my office. There then had to be contact with the courier on a mobile telephone in order to sort the matter out. As a result, the brother of one of the family members had to meet the courier at junction 29 of the motorway in order to collect the passport so that it would not be lost in the obscurer parts of my constituency. The family were waiting with the taxi outside the door so that they could leave immediately for Birmingham airport.
That family enjoyed their holiday, but they did not enjoy the experience before it. There could have been another case added to the list of 50. There must be many other people placed in such difficulties, some of whom may have given up before their holiday was due to take place because they could not stand the hassle. Many people are not used to jumping on aeroplanes and going overseas. This is a big issue for many and, for some, it may be the first such holiday and they do not want to deal with all the problems.

Mr. Allan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems with the way in which the backlog has been handled is that those who applied for their passports well in advance, which is something that the Passport Agency has been trying to encourage for a long time, have, in many ways, suffered the most because their passports have not been delivered on time? That is counterproductive if we want to encourage people to apply early because the message seems to be, "Don't bother applying early, just queue up for an emergency passport."

Mr. Barnes: If people have sussed out the arrangements, what information will they supply about the date of their holiday? Decisions are being made according to the date given for the holiday, not when the application was made.
I accept that things would have been much easier if the visitors passport system had still been in existence because, in many cases, that could have been used to cover the immediate problem without people having to travel considerable distances to queue at distant passport offices.
I welcome the improvements announced by the Home Secretary and I hope that they operate well. I accept that there will be an intermediate period in which MPs will be

called upon to use the avenues available to them within the system. I hope that we get this sorted out. We have not sorted out the problems with the CSA, despite the fact that this Government and the previous Government have thrown extra money at it and talked about rejigging it. I receive as many cases as ever about the operation of that agency and I hope that I will not receive as many letters about the operation of the Passport Agency.

Mr. Robert Syms: The Home Secretary was gracious enough to recognise that the Passport Agency has done a reasonable job since being set up as an executive agency in 1991, With the possible exception of a bit of a blip when temporary passports were abolished, it has by and large delivered a reasonable service. We all know that, when people turn up for passports at the last moment, it occasionally leads to queueing, but in general the Passport Agency has not been a political issue.
We are today discussing whether the current position was predictable. The computer contract was signed in July 1997—nearly two years ago. Those of us who have had any dealings with high technology know that things never go to plan: there are often difficulties, and more staff are needed. It is not therefore unreasonable to expect that things might slip.
We have been told that the changes in respect of passports for children have led to additional difficulties. The announcement about those changes was made last summer, and they were implemented in October. It did not happen yesterday or a few weeks ago—the decision was taken 12 months ago. So what has happened is that two policy decisions have come together and caused chaos.
It is clear that responsibility for that must lie with Home Office Ministers. I appreciate that the Home Office has to wrestle with many difficult issues, but in this case responsibility is clear. We have been told that an action plan was set up at the end of March. That was 10 or 12 weeks ago. We should be told today what was agreed at that stage; what targets were set; why they have not been fulfilled; and why we still have queues and newspaper headlines.
We have heard of about 93 people missing their holiday who may apply for compensation. What about those who have had to take time off work or travel many miles in order to get a passport? Is there a means by which they can be compensated?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) referred to security arrangements. An article in The Daily Telegraph in March reported that security arrangements may have been relaxed. That point should be answered.
I thank the House for listening to those brief words in this important debate.

Mr. David Lidington: The debate has reflected our constituents' anger and frustration at the fact that a part of government which, for many years, gave what hon. Members on both sides of the House agree was a first-class service, has failed dismally to meet the targets that have been set for it. The debate has also reflected the growing anger at the fact that Home Office Ministers have failed to come up with solutions to a crisis that should have been obvious to them for many weeks and months.
It was something of a consolation to us to hear the Home Secretary admit that the service provided by the agency was not what the public deserved, and was not up to the standard that the agency and Ministers had repeatedly promised it would maintain. Only the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who is no longer present, disbelieves the experience of our constituents as reported to us day by day and week by week. Lest the hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends remain in doubt, I emphasise that the story of this crisis is still being told in the Government's own statistics. The truth is that, despite all the emergency packages, action plans, apologies and good will from the Government Front Bench, matters are still getting worse rather than better.
I discovered from a written answer given to me by the Minister this afternoon that the backlog of passport applications waiting to be determined, which a fortnight ago stood at the already scandalously high total of 531,000, has now, a week later, risen to no fewer than 565,000.
Much the same record applies to telephone calls to the agency. I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). The Home Secretary told us that the Passport Agency received approximately 1.5 million calls in May. We know from written answers that 1.1 million callers got through not to a member of staff but to a recorded message informing them that all lines were busy. That means that barely one quarter of all calls to the Passport Agency are being answered.
In those circumstances, the Secretary of State must forgive us if we are somewhat cautious about accepting the travel advice and assurances that he has offered. He said that people should apply at least one month in advance, but most passport offices are taking almost two months to process routine applications. The truth is that people do not believe and trust the Government's assurances because they have been let down so badly over the past six to 12 months.
I hope that the Minister will not only respond to concerns such as those expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) but will give specific answers on a number of points. What is the Government's policy towards the general extension of passports by two years? Do they intend to develop that procedure further in the next few weeks to overcome the present crisis? Could those extensions include passports on which the names of children are listed? Will the Minister consider the problem of personal callers? Will he waive the £10 extra fee charged to personal callers when they have to come to the Passport Agency in person out of sheer desperation?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) began the debate by making the point that we have had no proper or detailed explanation from the ministerial team of how this crisis arose in the first place. From the way in which the Home Secretary responded, one might have thought that the crisis was down to something beyond ministerial control: like the weather, it had to be endured rather than tackled. The truth is that in July 1997—two years ago—Ministers

approved the contract and timetable for computerisation. In April 1998, Ministers announced that all children should be required to hold their own passports. Ministers decided that both those innovations should be introduced at once. If, for the reasons that Ministers have given, it was necessary to introduce both at once, why did they engage in such glaringly inadequate planning for such drastic innovations in the passport service?
The Home Secretary knew of the changes and had made an assessment of their likely impact when he approved the agency's business plan for 1998–99, which says:
The major challenge for the Agency in 1998/99 will be the successful management of the project to introduce these new passport issuing arrangements … whilst maintaining service standards in dealing with a continuing high volume of passport applications.
Ministers set the performance targets for the Passport Agency, presumably taking account of the impact of the policy changes that they had decided and had introduced. The Home Secretary set the 10-day turnround target for handling postal applications, and the targets for answering telephone calls and for dealing with personal callers.
So conscious were Ministers of the fact that the changes were bound to have a damaging impact on the Passport Agency that they did something that the Home Secretary notably omitted to tell us about in his speech: they explicitly softened the agency's efficiency target for 1998-99 to allow it to cope with the problems that Ministers expected to arise as a result of computerisation.
Despite all that, on 21 July 1998, the Minister said that, although he anticipated difficulties, he nevertheless expected the agency
to maintain a high standard of service throughout the year."—[Official Report, 21 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 435.]
That was the expectation in July last year. During the 12 months that have elapsed since then, there have been many occasions on which the alarm bells in the Home Office ought to have been ringing loud enough to awaken even this team of Ministers from their slumbers.
In summer 1998, the situation was already a good deal worse than 12 months previously. At the time when the Minister made his promise about high standards of service throughout the year, he already knew—or at least he ought to have known—that processing times for applications were significantly longer than in the same period in 1997. Even before computerisation and before the introduction of children's passports, the delays were getting worse.
Last winter, there was a huge rise in the number of applications outstanding at the end of each successive month—from 116,000 in November to 121,000 in December; 167,000 in January; and 280,000 in February, which is when one expects, on the basis of historical experience, that the agency should be in the slack period of its seasonal work flow.
It is no good Ministers' saying, as some anonymous spin doctors have done in recent days, that this problem is all to do with the agency; that they were never told and did not know about it; in other words, "It wasn't me guv." Paragraph 4.13 of the agency's corporate plan says that forecasts of demand for passports will be subject to—

Mr. Mike O'Brien: It is the hon. Gentleman's first outing on the Front Bench. He said that spin doctors are trying to shift responsibility. Can he justify that statement?

Mr. Lidington: If the Minister had picked up any one of a number of newspapers in the past week—and newspapers, as we know, are the Government's usual way of communicating with Parliament and the country—he would have seen many references to the sort of thing that I have described.

Mr. O'Brien: rose—

Mr. Lidington: The Minister will have ample opportunity to reply.
The agency's corporate plan said that forecasts of demand for passports would be subject to monthly review, taking account of the actual demand experienced by the agency. It is not a matter of Ministers being overtaken by an unexpected surge in applications. Mechanisms are supposed to exist for them to be informed of, and to initiate action on the basis of, the pattern of demand experienced during the year. Having listened to Home Office Ministers, I wonder whether they bothered to read the reports coming from the agency, until the one in March this year that finally alerted them.
I hope that the Minister will address a number of long-term issues that have been raised in the debate. Security matters were addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) asked whether it remained the Government's plan that the criminal records agency should be administered by the Passport Agency. In view of the problems, can the Minister say whether the Government still plan to move the London passport office away from Clive house during the current financial year, since, whatever the gains to be won from that move, some short-term disruption of services must be expected?
Above all, the House requires an explanation, and a plan of action with the sort of detail that has not yet been forthcoming from Ministers. Bland assurances that they are trying their best and that it will all be over by September will not be good enough for the House or for our constituents.
The agency's business plan for 1999–2000 has not yet been published. It is hardly any wonder that people lack confidence in the Minister's capacity to deal with the crisis to which the agency is now subject. We are now a quarter of the way through the financial year, yet the Minister says that he hopes to have the plan available to him in the next few weeks. In other words, he is pleading that the business plan is in the post.
If the Minister were holding a comparable position in the private sector, that sort of handling of management and business planning would have the regulators camping in his office, the shareholders baying for his blood and the board of directors examining the fine print of his contract of employment.
I had not realised that my analogy would be quite so accurate. In today's edition of the Evening Standard—under the headline,
Passport Crisis: It's Your Fault",
I found the Minister quoted as saying,
The difficulty is that millions of people are literally phoning up because of the panic that is going on, partly as a result, I have to say, of the reporting of this.

The Minister may not have realised—the Whips may not have told him—that a spokesman for the Prime Minister was quoted in the same article as saying:
I do not agree that there is a panic. People are understandably concerned.
The half-smiles on the face of Government Whips indicate that the tumbrel is being rolled out even as we speak.
Hundreds of thousands of decent, hard-working people in this country today are paying the cost of the idleness and complacency of Home Office Ministers. It was Ministers who introduced children's passports and who, at the same time, pressed ahead with computerisation without adequate preparation or back-up. It was Ministers who then sat on their hands while the queues lengthened, the backlog of post piled up and public frustration and anxiety grew.
In their handling of the crisis affecting the Passport Agency, the Government have demonstrated that they are both indolent and incompetent, and they have shamefully neglected their duty to provide the British people with the decent public service to which they are entitled and which, until recently, they enjoyed. It is for those reasons that I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the motion tonight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I begin by extending a welcome to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on his first sojourn on the Opposition Front Bench. I wish to chide him gently for not being able to justify an allegation that he made, but it was his first time and he put in a confident performance.
Let us deal with what is a very serious issue for our constituents. I am concerned about the backlogs in the Passport Agency. They are unacceptable, and I am sorry that this has happened. The Government told the Passport Agency to sort this out and to get people off on their holidays. Intake is now falling, and, in due course, that will reduce delays, together with the package of measures that we have announced, including the recruitment of 400 more staff. We are mounting a high-profile media campaign to inform people of how to get their passports and what action to take.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Minister has made great play of his reassurances to the public that the recruitment of another 100 employees will make the difference. Will those 100 employees go straight to work tomorrow, or will they require to be trained, as there are security implications in terms of granting passports? If they are to be trained, will not the very people who, at the moment, are dealing with the backlog have to train them?

Mr. O'Brien: That is a sensible and reasonable question. The staff at the moment are working enormously long hours to try to ensure that people get on holiday. We have brought in 300 new full-time staff, who are in place. Some are in the process of being trained, while some have been trained.
We became aware that the situation was developing in late March, and I asked for a recovery plan from the chief executive of the Passport Agency, who provided one,


together with his view that 300 extra staff were needed. With the Home Secretary's permission, I promptly authorised the recruitment of those staff. They have been recruited in recent months, and most are now in place. I have had a further meeting with the chief executive, and agreed the recruitment of a further 100 members of staff. Some of those will be able to work immediately because they will be doing tasks that do not require training. Others will require training, and it will take some time before they are entirely productive, in the sense of turning out passports.
The staff at the Passport Agency, including the 300 extra staff recruited recently, deserve a lot of praise. I join the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and others who have said that when the staff of the Passport Agency have been contacted, they have sought to do their best for any constituent with an urgent travel date. The staff are working their socks off to try to get people off on holiday, and they are now hitting their 99.99 per cent. target. I hope that they can continue to do that for the next few weeks.
We know that demand is starting to come down and we believe that the situation will come under full control, and that we will be able to ensure that people get off on their holidays. It is not the fault of ordinary workers that computer problems have arisen, and they do not deserve criticism. I wish to join the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and others in praising those who have worked so hard.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Did not the Minister realise earlier this year that the figures were mounting and that there was bound to be a crisis in the summer? Whose fault is it?

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been here for the whole debate. It has already been made clear that in the early part of the year the figures were not mounting as he suggests. They started to increase substantially in March, and at that point I called in the chief executive and said that we should take prompt action and recruit staff. We are taking other steps, including strengthening the management team to help David Gatenby, the chief executive, to ensure that we deliver in the current difficult circumstances.
We are deferring part of the roll-out of the computer programme until we can be sure that it will not cause further delays. We are extending passports free of charge for another two years, because that is quicker and gets people off on their holidays. The new chief executive will review the future of the agency in October, as his first task, to ensure that the problems never arise again.
I will visit the various parts of the agency to ensure that everything is being done that should be done to ensure that our constituents get the passports that they deserve. We aim to get the wait down to 10 days by the end of September.

Mr. Tyrie: The Minister has kindly sent us secret fax numbers to allow us to accelerate the process of getting passports for our constituents. But is not that creating two

categories of applicants: those who go to their Member of Parliament and accelerate their applications, and the rest? Is it not a disgrace that those who apply in the normal way are thus put even further back in the queue?

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is close to denigrating the role that he plays as a representative of his constituents. Does he hold them so cheap that he believes that when they come to him he should be able to do nothing? [Interruption.] When my constituents come to me, they expect me to be able to do something to try to resolve their problems. The hon. Gentleman may want to be impotent in the face of problems; I do not. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The many thousands of people outside who are affected by this matter might expect this debate to be conducted with due solemnity. The Minister should be heard.

Mr. O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: Will the hon. Gentleman sit down until I have dealt with the point made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), who has asked whether I should listen to the representations of Members of Parliament? Many Conservative Members will know that I do that. We must also ensure, however, that all our constituents with urgent travel dates get passports, regardless of whether they go to their Member of Parliament. That is not the issue. If hon. Members who have a representative capacity want to contact the Passport Agency, they should be able to do so. If they want to talk to me, they should be able to do so. That is how it has been since I became a Minister.

Mr. McLoughlin: The Minister says that he wants to treat everyone the same. Why did he feel it necessary to change the number when some colleagues, as he said in his letter, had let the public know the direct number that we were entitled to use?

Mr. O'Brien: Some hon. Members asked me whether they could fax information about their constituents to the agency. It was a perfectly reasonable request, so I gave them a number. Somebody put it out on the radio, which resulted in the faxes not getting through; no Member of Parliament was able to get a fax through, so hon. Members asked me whether they could have another fax number. I was trying to help, but obviously Conservative Members feel that Ministers should not try to be helpful to them and their constituents. That is not how I conduct myself as a Minister: I continue to try to help.

Mr. Eric Martlew: On the so-called secret numbers, I remember how, a few years ago, when there was a strike at the Liverpool office, the then Government gave Members of Parliament private numbers so that they could represent their constituents. Is it not hypocrisy for Conservative Members to complain now?

Mr. O'Brien: Absolutely.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: I have given way enough, and I must make some progress.
Experience shows that Departments are having problems with computerisation—it also happens in the private sector—but computerised passports are more secure, with a digitalised image and signature; the date can be scanned, and automated security checks can reduce fraud and improve efficiency. The 1996 review concluded that the changes were necessary. The Minister then responsible agreed and set in place the canvassing of possible private sector partners.
We accept responsibility for having approved those plans in July 1997. The roll-out at Liverpool was on 5 October 1998, and at Newport in mid-November. Siemens was the main contractor. The system was delivered to tight deadlines, including the refurbishment of buildings and the design and introduction of the new passport. There are many lessons to be learned, and we are in the process of evaluating them and ensuring that the mistakes are not made again.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) asked whether I was lucky. The immigration brief is one of the most difficult, so perhaps the die was cast at the beginning, but my task is to modernise and computerise IND and the Passport Agency. Computerisation has caused problems in the private sector too, but once the teething problems are sorted out, computers prove invaluable.
When the Conservatives introduced computers in 1989, there were serious teething problems, with massive backlogs, but soon production increased dramatically. That is what I expect to happen now. Modernisation is never easy but it brings benefits in the end. The teething problems need to be sorted out and I am prepared to see that through and ensure that we deliver.
I will take no lessons in this task from a Front-Bench team led by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. She criticises us for incompetence. That is rich from her. She was the prisons Minister when 800 criminals were released early by accident—not over the walls but out of the doors—and it was she who, to ensure that women prisoners who were about to give birth did not escape, chained them to the delivery table. Once the baby was born—

Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a point of fact, as the Minister well knows—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady cannot raise a point of debate on a point of order.

Mr. O'Brien: If she cannot take it, she should not dish it out.

Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—a point of order for the Chair. Is it in order for Ministers to make statements to the House that they know not to be accurate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is entirely a matter for debate.

Mr. O'Brien: What about the Child Support Agency, which the right hon. Lady created? Now she wanders up and down the country stirring up misery about people's holidays. We want to get people off on holiday; she wants to tell them that we will spoil their holiday. I want to

praise the staff for working their socks off to get people off on holiday. The Passport Agency had to computerise because of passport forgery. We implemented proposals that the right hon. Lady made as a Minister. We take responsibility for them and do not seek to duck them, as the previous Government sought to duck a whole series of decisions.
We introduced a package of measures involving more staff and a publicity campaign to ensure that people know what to do to get their passports, extending the passport for two years so that people can get away more quickly, and paying compensation to those who miss their holidays. We will get people off on their holidays with a more secure passport that is less susceptible to fraud.
Staff at the Passport Agency are working enormously long hours to ensure that this happens. Their spirit of commitment is a credit to the public sector. There have been difficulties in modernising the agency, but it needs to be done. We will work our way through the problems and resolve them. We are determined to deliver a system that works. The Conservatives may carp and criticise but their record of incompetence was far worse than anything that we could deliver. We want to ensure that we deliver; and we will.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 351.

Division No. 220]
[7 pm


AYES



Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Cotter, Brian


Allan, Richard
Cran, James


Amess, David
Curry, Rt Hon David


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Baker, Norman
Duncan, Alan


Beggs, Roy
Duncan Smith, lain


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bercow, John
Evans, Nigel


Beresford, Sir Paul
Faber, David


Blunt, Crispin
Fabricant, Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Fallon, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Fearn, Ronnie


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Forsythe, Clifford


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Brady, Graham
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brake, Tom
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brazier, Julian
Fraser, Christopher


Breed, Colin
Gale, Roger


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Garnier, Edward


Browning, Mrs Angela
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gibb, Nick


Bumett, John
Gill, Christopher


Bums, Simon
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Burstow, Paul
Gray, James


Butterfill, John
Green, Damian


Cable, Dr Vincent
Greenway, John


Cash, William
Grieve, Dominic


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Hague, Rt Hon William


Chidgey, David
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Chope, Christopher
Hancock, Mike


Clappison, James
Harris, Dr Evan


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Harvey, Nick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hawkins, Nick


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Heald, Oliver


Collins, Tim
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Horam, John



Howard, Rt Hon Michael



Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)






Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Sanders, Adrian


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jenkin, Bernard
Shepherd, Richard


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Simpson, Keith (Mid & Norfolk)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Keetch, Paul
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Key, Robert
Soames, Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Spicer, Sir Michael


Kirkwood, Archy
Spring, Richard


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lansley, Andrew
Steen, Anthony


Leigh, Edward
Streeter, Gary


Letwin, Oliver
Stunell, Andrew


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Syms, Robert


Lidington, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Livsey, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Luff, Peter
Taylor, Sir Teddy


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Townend, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tredinnick, David


Madel, Sir David
Trend, Michael


Maples, John
Tyler, Paul


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Tyrie, Andrew


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Viggers, Peter


Moore, Michael
Walter, Robert


Moss, Malcolm
Wardle, Charles


Nicholls, Patrick
Waterson, Nigel


Norman, Archie
Webb, Steve


Öpik, Lembit
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Ottaway, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Page, Richard
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Paterson, Owen
Wilkinson, John


Pickles, Eric
Willetts, David


Prior, David
Willis, Phil


Randall, John
Wilshire, David


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Robathan, Andrew
Woodward, Shaun


Robertson, Laurence (Tewkb'ry)
Yeo, Tim


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Mr. Stephen Day and


St Aubyn, Nick
Mrs. Jacqui Lait.


NOES



Abbott, Ms Diane
Blizzard, Bob


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Ainger, Nick
Boateng, Paul


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Borrow, David


Alexander, Douglas
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Allen, Graham
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bradshaw, Ben


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Browne, Desmond


Atkins, Charlotte
Buck, Ms Karen


Banks, Tony
Burden, Richard


Barnes, Harry
Burgon, Colin


Bayley, Hugh
Butler, Mrs Christine


Beard, Nigel
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cabom, Rt Hon Richard


Begg, Miss Anne
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Bell. Martin (Talton)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Campbell & Savours, Dale


Bennett, Andrew F
Cann, Jamie


Benton, Joe
Caplin, Ivor


Berry, Roger
Casale, Roger


Best, Harold
Caton, Martin


Betts, Clive
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Blackman, Liz
Chaytor, David


Blears, Ms Hazel
Chaytor, David





Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Grogan, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hain, Peter


Clwyd, Ann
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Coaker, Vernon
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Cohen, Harry
Hanson, David


Coleman, lain
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Colman, Tony
Healey, John


Connarty, Michael
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hepbum, Stephen


Corbett, Robin
Heppell, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hesford, Stephen


Corston, Ms Jean
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cousins, Jim
Hill, Keith


Cox, Tom
Hinchliffe, David


Cranston, Ross
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Crausby, David
Hoey, Kate


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hood, Jimmy


Cryer, John (Homchurch)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cummings, John
Hope, Phil


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Howells, Dr Kim


Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hoyle, Lindsay


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davidson, Ian
Hurst, Alan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hutton, John


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dawson, Hilton
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jamieson, David


Denham, John
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dobbin, Jim
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Drown, Ms Julia
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Edwards, Huw
Keeble, Ms Sally


Efford, Clive
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Ennis, Jeff
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Etherington, Bill
Kemp, Fraser


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Khabra, Piara S


Fisher, Mark
Kidney, David


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fitzsimons, Lorna
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Flint, Caroline
Kingham, Ms Tess


Flynn, Paul
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Follett, Barbara
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Laxton, Bob


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lepper, David


Fyfe, Maria
Leslie, Christopher


Galloway, George
Levitt, Tom


Gapes, Mike
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Gerrard, Neil
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Gibson, Dr Ian
Linton, Martin


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Livingstone, Ken


Godman, Dr Norman A
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Godsiff, Roger
Love, Andrew


Goggins, Paul
McAvoy, Thomas


Golding, Mrs Llin
McCabe, Steve


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McCafferty, Ms Chris






McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Pike, Peter L


McDonagh, Siobhain
Plaskitt, James


Macdonald, Calum
Pond, Chris


McDonnell, John
Pope, Greg


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Powell, Sir Raymond


Mclsaac, Shona
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Primerolo, Dawn


McNamara, Kevin
Prosser, Gwyn


McNulty, Tony
Purchase, Ken


MacShane, Denis
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Mactaggart, Fiona
Radice, Giles


McWalter, Tony
Rammell, Bill


McWilliam, John
Rapson, Syd


Mallaber, Judy
Raynsford, Nick


Mendelson, Rt Hon Peter
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coy'try NW)


Marshal—Andrews, Robert
Rooker, Jeff


Martlew, Eric
Rooney, Terry


Maxton, John
Rowlands, Ted


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Roy, Frank


Meale, Alan
Ruane, Chris


Merron, Gillian
Ruddock, Joan


Milbum, Rt Hon Alan
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Miller, Andrew
Ryan, Ms Joan


Mitchell, Austin
Satter, Martin


Moffatt, Laura
Sarwar, Mohammad


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Savidge, Malcolm


Moran, Ms Margaret
Sawford, Phil


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Morley, Elliot
Shaw, Jonathan


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Sheerrnan, Barry


Mudie, George
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mullin, Chris
Shipley, Ms Debra


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Singh, Marsha


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Skinner, Dennis


Norris, Dan
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


O'Hara, Eddie
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


O'Neill, Martin
Snape, Peter


Organ, Mrs Diana
Southworth, Ms Helen


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Speller, John


Palmer, Dr Nick
Squire, Ms Rachel


Pearson, Ian
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Pendry, Tom
Steinberg, Gerry


Pickthall, Colin






Stevenson, George
Vis, Dr Rudi


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Walley, Ms Joan


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Ward, Ms Claire


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wareing, Robert N


Stoate. Dr Howard
Watts, David


Stott, Roger
White, Brian


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wicks, Malcolm


 Stringer Graham 
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) 
Wills, Michael


Taylor, Ms Dad (Stockton S)
Wilson, Brian


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Winnick, David


Temple—Morris, Peter
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wise, Audrey


Tipping, Paddy
Wood, Mike


Todd, Mark
Woolas, Phil


Touhig, Don
Worthington, Tony


Trickett, Jon
Wray, James


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Wyatt, Derek


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Mr. David Clelland and


Vaz, Keith
Jane Kennedy.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House acknowledges the difficult operational situation that the Passport Agency is facing and greatly regrets the inconvenience caused to the public; notes the measures that the Agency is taking to remedy the situation including the deployment of 300 additional staff, the streamlining of processes to boost productivity whilst maintaining security and the willingness of Agency staff to work seven days a week to help clear the arrears; further notes that in spite of this difficult position the Agency is meeting 99.99 per cent. of travel dates and will continue to do so throughout the summer and beyond; and agrees that it is right to introduce the policy of separate passports for children.

Planning and Transport Congestion

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. John Redwood: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the Government's contradictory signals on transport and planning policies; requests the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to cancel the M4 bus lane, and find a way of reopening the Circle Line and keeping other tube lines open; notes that the Government has no policies to increase road or rail capacity in line with traffic growth forecasts; is appalled that motorists are paying more and more tax under Labour to sit in ever worse traffic jams; and urges the Government to revitalise town centres and to follow transport and planning policies that can get Britain moving again.
I have declared my interests in the Register of Members' Interests, and I do not speak on their behalf in this debate. However, I have some further interests to declare. I am a driver; I am a train passenger; I am a tube traveller, if there are trains for me to take; I am, from time to time, a pedestrian. I also own two Jaguars. I believe that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions also uses two Jaguars, although I do not know whether he can claim either to own or to drive them himself.
I am upset that the Deputy Prime Minister is presiding over the collapse of our transport system. It is becoming more difficult, if not impossible, to get around the country. New Labour does not travel well. The Deputy Prime Minister is none too keen on new Labour, but he proves how new and old Labour, acting together, are bringing Britain to a standstill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Labour Members should treat transport with more seriousness because their constituents cannot get around. It is their constituents who find tube trains cancelled or delayed.
Do Labour Members know that the Circle line is not working under the Government, or that the Northern line is threatened with closure, or that District line trains were heavily delayed today? Do they know that the latest report on the tube shows that it has not hit its targets on punctuality, cleanliness or general service? Have they seen the almost permanent traffic jams on many sections of the road network? Do they know that too many trains arrive late, and that they often have no proper facilities on board? With this Government, it is jams today, and jams tomorrow.

Mr. Phil Hope: My constituents know that the Labour Government have given an extra £700,000 to rural buses in this financial year, and they know that the Government are providing support for rural transport.

Mr. Redwood: Many councils have suffered dreadful rate support grants and have been unable to increase expenditure. The hon. Gentleman provokes me into mentioning investment in London Regional Transport, one of the areas suffering most from the Deputy Prime Minister's deep cuts. In the final year of the Conservative Administration, investment was £1,060 million. That fell to £843 million in the first year of the Labour Government, and to £654 million in the second. In the third Labour year, it is planned to be £564 million.

The Deputy Prime Minister may scowl at me, but he cannot deny the figures. It is not my fault that he cannot do a good deal with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Investment has almost halved while he has been Deputy Prime Minister and Transport Secretary.

Mr. Andrew Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope)? After bus deregulation, the number of bus passengers fell by a third outside London. Is my hon. Friend not right to say that the Government are absolutely right to correct the ridiculous imbalance created by the Conservative Administration?

Mr. Redwood: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the facts, he will see that privatisation has increased competition, choice and passenger numbers and that the frustration now is due to the fact that there are more passengers for buses and trains, but there is not enough money or decent management under this Government to provide the train and bus services that those passengers require.
In the past fortnight, I have been delayed when travelling from Paddington to Westminster thanks to the inadequate tube service. I faced a long delay on the Virgin train when I tried to travel by train from Manchester to Birmingham, and I waited 25 minutes for a bus in Oxford, where a park-and-ride scheme is advertised as having seven-minute services. Now, even the buses are held up by the absurd road closures in that Labour council area. In Oxford, it is not park and ride, but park, pay and wait, thanks to the Labour council and the policies that the Deputy Prime Minister is encouraging. I have spent many unhappy minutes in traffic jams on the M4, watching the entirely empty bus lane and wondering whether the Prime Minister would sweep by on that day as its only user.
This Government are out of touch—and in such a short space of time. The Deputy Prime Minister already seems to think that buses and tubes are there for others to use, or there for a photo opportunity with a Jaguar waiting to whisk him off to where he wants to go once the photo has been taken—[Interruption.] It is not a cheap jibe; it is true and that is why it hurts. The right hon. Gentleman will not even answer my question about how many times he has come to the office using public transport. I am sure that he uses a car because he has decided, like many others, that public transport is not good enough. I do not blame him; I just do not like the humbug. Why does he not admit that people have to use the car because there is no practical choice for many of their journeys, as Ministers illustrate? As for his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, he thinks that bus lanes are there for him to use when he is not travelling by the Queen's flight. For the rest of us, it is not life in the fast lane, but life kept out of the bus lane.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Hear, hear!

Mr. Redwood: I thank my hon. Friend for that appreciation.
The Chancellor thinks that motorists are there to pay everyone else's bills, as he merrily goes on his way forcing the price of motoring through the roof. Now, we know that planning policy is to be relaxed to make the traffic jams worse. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor appear


to favour more out-of-town superstores. That means more cars and lorries on the roads and a further blow to town centres, where there are still bus and train stations.

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): What did the Conservatives do?

Mr. Redwood: The right hon. Gentleman asks what my right hon. Friends did when they were in government—they changed the planning guidance to try to restrict out-of-town developments for that very reason. Now we read clear indications that, against the wishes of the Deputy Prime Minister—I will give him that—No. 10, No. 11 and the Department of Trade and Industry have decided that they want to relax planning controls because they want to cover the south in concrete.

Mr. Bill Rammell: There are three out-of-town shopping centres in my constituency, all of which were rejected by the local council at the time. Those rejections were all over turned and the plans approved on appeal by the Government that the right hon. Gentleman supported. Is not this tirade the grossest hypocrisy, given the chaos and mess that that Government created?

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not read planning policy guidance 6—the guidance that made it clear that we favoured in-town development. I hope that he will get a reassurance from the Deputy Prime Minister that the right hon. Gentleman will stand by that policy, whatever his right hon. Friends say, and that, on this solitary occasion, he will win the argument. Clearly, he did not win the argument to get his travel Bill—I am glad that he did not, as it was such a bad Bill—and we now hear that he will probably not get his railway Bill next year either, because he is so bad at negotiating with the Prime Minister and with No. 11.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that revised planning policy guidance 6 came in right at the end of the Conservative Government? For 15 out of the 18 years of the Conservative Government—the vast majority—there was a free-for-all in out-of-town shopping.

Mr. Redwood: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman remembers that out-of-town superstores were a phenomenon that was more concentrated in the late 1980s and early 1990s. We changed the guidance when we saw how things were going. The issue now, which the Government cannot conceal, is are they going to protect out-of-town areas—are they going to stand up for the city centres—or not? Or will we see more of what we saw today with the report about inner-city revival—it contains some quite good ideas—which has been produced after two years of this Government? What did the Deputy Prime Minister say? He said that he had not got much voice left and he did not intend to do anything about any of the recommendations for at least 12 months.
Why is the matter not more urgent? Why do the Government not want to do something to put the cities back on the map and to stem the exodus that they created from northern industrial towns and cities to the south? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is Labour's

wanton destruction of British industry in the north and midlands that is leading to the mass exodus to the south? Instead of laughing at it, Labour Members should stand up for their constituents, who are suffering from it.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman has the incredible brass neck to berate us for out-of-town developments. Permission for 50 per cent. of all out-of-town hypermarkets was given under his Government in the five years between 1986 and 1991. Is that not just hypocrisy with a capital H?

Mr. Redwood: Why does not the hon. Gentleman save his breath and ensure that his right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister understands that he must not relax the rather good planning policies that we put in place in the 1990s? The hon. Gentleman says that he is so worried about it, but he ought to have the courage and honesty to say that his argument is with those on the Government Front Bench, who are thinking of undermining a rather good policy—which I think he supports and which the Conservatives introduced. The Deputy Prime Minister also favours building more houses on green fields throughout the south-east to accommodate the mass migration from the northern cities.
The Chancellor always taxes when he can. He now thinks that he is on to another good thing to raise some money. He has decided that he wants to tax any motorist who succeeds in getting to work by car if that motorist dares to park when he gets there. That is on top of the £150 extra in fuel duty being paid already by the average motorist as a result of the swingeing increases in fuel duty imposed by this miserable Government.
I wonder whether the Government understand that people who live in rural areas often have no choice of travel. There are many villages with no bus services, or with only a few buses a week. People have to go by car if they are going to travel. For them, new Labour's transport policy is going nowhere fast. The difference is that the Conservatives did not make it impossible for people to use cars in those rural areas—this Government are making it impossible for people to use their cars, as well as denying—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but there are far too many sedentary comments, and some of them are coming from those on the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Redwood: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Robert Key: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there was never a golden age for buses? It is ridiculous to suppose that buses alone are the answer for rural transport. Buses do not go where people want to go, which is between village and village; they go down arterial routes. It is missing the target for Labour Members to bay at us that buses are the only answer.

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point from his own experience, with which I entirely agree.
Do the Government realise that some people who live in urban areas also have little choice about travel? The station car park may be full or vandalised. What are they going to do about that? The train or bus service may not


take people out of town to the places that they wish to go. It may go nowhere near one's home, so one has to use the car to go to the station, if one wishes to use the train. Cross-country train services are either slow or non-existent in many parts of the country.
It is high time that Ministers woke up to those realities and stopped living in the past. It is high time that they stopped throwing jibes about Conservative Governments long ago and did something now. The British public are angry now and they are angry with this Government. They have already expressed their views on the previous Government. We have learned and listened and we have exciting new policies to get Britain on the move; this lot opposite on the Labour Benches have not a clue about how to get Britain back on the move.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: I am interested to know about the solutions that the right hon. Gentleman is offering. Can he say what his policy would be to improve bus services?

Mr. Redwood: I am glad that Labour Members want to learn from the Opposition, because we have much better ideas than the Government. I will come to ideas about how we can improve the position later, but I can give him some immediately—scrap the M4 bus lane, make the motorway safer, and get more people along the M4 in the morning peak time. That may not be so convenient for the Prime Minister, but it would be a lot more convenient for the rest of us.
Now, there is a spat between the Deputy Prime Minister and his boss. The Prime Minister is bitterly undermining his deputy through press briefings. He is letting it be known, in the usual backhand way, that he holds him to blame for stand-still Britain. The Prime Minister is determined that, as Britain grinds to a halt, it will be his deputy who is in the political jam.
The Deputy Prime Minister is not taking all that lying down. For once, I do not blame him—in fact, I find myself becoming extremely sympathetic towards to him—[Interruption.] Oh yes I do. He has been more spinned against than spinning. He protests that he is being blamed for implementing the Government's manifesto policies. Surely, he whispers, the Prime Minister should take the blame for the bash-the-motorist policies, for they are the policies of the Labour party as a whole.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman is right to take that view. Why blame the steward when you can blame the man who threw the party in the first place? For once, I admire the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister is the real thing; he oozes hatred of the motorist—[Interruption.] Hon. Members think that I went to a public school. I did not go to a public school; I went to a direct-grant school on a free place, which was rather different. It was that or the grammar school.
At least Two-Jags John is the real thing—he oozes hatred of the motorist and revels in the higher charges and taxes on motorists. He loves to see the rest of us struggling beside the empty bus lane, running the gauntlet of the growing selection of humps, cameras, chicanes,

traffic lights and coloured lines that now deck out many a main route under his description of an integrated transport policy. It is, of course, a disintegrating transport policy.

Mr. Andrew Reed: Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to tell us that the Conservatives are against chicanes, bumps and speed cameras, all of which are measures that save pedestrians' lives? Is he against all bus lanes? Perhaps he should consider the experience of people in Loughborough, where a bus lane was introduced only five months ago, and bus usage increased dramatically—by at least 15 per cent. Is that not an example of the sort of integrated transport system that is required? By rejecting all those matters, the right hon. Gentleman is not talking about a real integrated transport system; he is making cheap points that have no relevance to the debate on transport that we need.

Mr. Redwood: I advise the hon. Gentleman not to send those remarks to Downing street; they are definitely off-message. We do not want those impediments on through routes, red routes or main roads. There are uses for traffic-calming measures in residential areas, but not on main routes. Labour Members are getting muddled as to when, where and how such measures should be used. What they are doing is reducing the amount of available road space.

Jacqui Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Redwood: Usually, I should do so, but I am short of time and many hon. Members want to speak.

Mr. Graham Allen: We are getting some good stuff out of this.

Mr. Redwood: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman thinks that there is good stuff in my remarks. He is quite right. It is much better than he will hear from the Treasury Bench.
The Deputy Prime Minister is being undermined by his boss at the very point at which he is succeeding in bringing the motorist to boiling point. That is what the Government planned; they wanted to infuriate the motorist, and they are succeeding. That is the one pledge they intend to keep. New Labour promised us joined-up government, but one branch of the Government is spending £150 million to get more cars made in Britain by subsidising Rover, while another is trying to stop any of them being driven when they have been produced and sold. That is not integration, but contradiction.
There is another spat or three over Labour's approach to big business. It looks as though "Just call me Steve"—the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—the Chancellor and the Prime Minister want to relax planning controls to allow genetically modified food companies more scope to plant, and to permit more new superstores to be built out of town. However, we know that the Deputy Prime Minister wants to restrict all of those, reflecting his good, old-fashioned distaste for big business and all its works. We all know who will win. The deputy Prime Minister has lost many times before; doubtless he will lose again. He should now watch out for more undermining from the centre, as the Government cosy up more closely to the supermarket barons and the genetically motivated Lords.
What should the Deputy Prime Minister do? My advice to him is to go and have it out with the Prime Minister, man to man, before the briefings get any worse. He may have to queue for an appointment; he may need to remind the staff at Downing street who he is. We learn from The Independent that he has just been relieved of his special campaigning role. That is the first case of a Minister being sacked in order to spend more time with his Department. However, there is plenty for him to do there.
The right hon. Gentleman should start with the M4 bus lane. It must go. No one believes that it is quicker to go by car now that there are only two lanes instead of three. On that logic, all dual carriageways should be reduced to single carriageways to get rid of the jams. New Labour is not motoring. Then, he should turn to the tube. He should hold urgent talks to get the Circle line working again in busy periods, and provide bus alternatives when it has to be closed.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Redwood: I do not have enough time to give way.
The Deputy Prime Minister should stop London Underground from closing the Northern line. He should restore the massive cuts that he has made in the investment programme for the underground. The Labour Government have slashed investment in London Transport from £1,060 million in the last year of the Conservative Government to £564 million now. Tonight, if he announces anything less than £500 million extra for the tube this year, it will still be a massive cut in the investment plans that we introduced and were successfully implementing.
The Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues have slashed the roads budget and slashed investment on the tube. Now, to add to the misery, they want to charge us to drive into the city centre and again for parking at work. Only the Deputy Prime Minister could believe that the answer to Britain's transport problems is a poll tax on wheels. The only beneficiary of that will be the Conservative party. I am glad that he is so well inclined towards us; his policies suit our party interests well but they serve the nation so badly.
The Deputy Prime Minister now says that he wants to regenerate our city centres. Why, then, does he want to stop people driving in city centres and owning cars in cities? Does he not realise that people value the freedom brought by the car? His measures will put people off his city centres, rather than encouraging people to go to them. His Department's annual report states that new roads relieve congestion and help the regeneration of rundown areas. I agree with that. Does the Deputy Prime Minister stand by that statement? Has he read it? Does he agree with it? If he agrees with it, why does he not do something about it? Why has he cancelled so many of the roads and other transport links that could bring some relief to those rundown inner-city areas?
The right hon. Gentleman is fast becoming the biggest polluter of them all. The best way to increase pollution is to increase traffic jams; he has perfected dozens of ways of doing just that. He causes more congestion than an epidemic of summer colds. Labour is not new and it is not green. It is old and brown. It is just a rip-off. The motorist now rues the day that a Labour Government came to town.
Occasionally, a member of the Government does something that captures the public mood and sums up a feeling. No one is better at that than the Prime Minister. Only the other day, he did it again, by travelling down that bus lane on the M4. That was arrogant. It demonstrated a dangerous absurdity in Labour's transport policy. It showed how out of touch the Government now are.

Mr. Clive Efford: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that traffic in and around London is projected to increase by between 30 and 50 per cent. by 2030? What would be his policies to address that issue?

Mr. Redwood: First, we would privatise the tube and get massive new investment for the tube system, so that it provided a better alternative. Secondly, we would remove a great deal of clutter from the main routes so that traffic could flow better. Thirdly, by sorting out the enormity of fuel and diesel duty that has been heaped on taxi drivers, we would give them a much better deal than the hon. Gentleman's miserable Government have given them.
I promised to confine my remarks to 20 minutes; that time is now up. I read today, after a week of anti-briefing, that the Prime Minister backs his Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, bus lane and all. When he reads that in the papers, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman minds his back and scraps his bus lane. Over the past few days, the message in the papers has been quite lethal for the right hon. Gentleman—the boss is not happy with his performance; England, Scotland and Wales are in revolt over the transport chaos; the nation is not happy with the Deputy Prime Minister. He should think again, or relations with No. 10 will get even worse. I urge the House to support our motion.

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
deplores the previous Government's record of under-investment and disintegration in the transport network, its failure to tackle congestion as traffic rose by 75 per cent., the £1.2 billion investment backlog it left on the London Underground and its cut in road maintenance; commends the Government for producing the first Transport White Paper for 20 years, taking a far-sighted and more integrated approach than the previous administration, and linking together planning and transport policy more closely; and notes that the present Government has begun to tackle the inherited problems of under-investment, pollution and increasing traffic congestion, by a new radical integrated strategy, including an extra £1.8 billion for public transport and local transport management, winning back passengers to public transport, improving road maintenance, encouraging greater fuel efficiency, reducing pollution, and introducing the long-term policies needed to increase transport choice and improve Britain's transport system.".
I do not intend to treat the House with the contempt displayed by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). Transport is one of the Government's most important policy areas. It is important for the environment and for the effectiveness of our industry. We must address the problems that have occurred during the past 18 years—although they were occurring before then. Congestion and transport problems have been evident for a considerable period. There has been a move from public transport to the private vehicle; we have to change that. I shall try to address that point.
The speech of the right hon. Gentleman had more to do with humour than with any substantial ideas as to how we solve the problems. I suggest that he changes his scriptwriter—the jokes were not particularly humorous. It is a bit much for him to talk about the problems of the underground. We inherited a £1.2 billion under-investment in the system, because the previous Conservative Government refused to make a proper investment in the underground. The figures cited by the right hon. Gentleman are not accurate. The previous Government planned to invest £729 million in 1997–98; that was to be cut to £350 million in 1998–99 and to £161 million in 1999–2000. That was the judgment of the last Conservative Budget—the right hon. Gentleman can check the figures easily enough. It is not surprising that the Circle line and the Northern line are facing problems as a result of that disinvestment.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the local authority settlement was not a good one. In fact, it was a generous settlement and it was accepted by the local authorities. By any comparison with any settlement of the past five to seven years, it was indeed generous, and it was acknowledged as such by hon. Members on both sides of the House when it was announced. The right hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the newspaper: the endlessly repeated story about my getting on to a bus and a Jaguar following behind is totally untrue. I constantly use public transport, and I can say that I spent 10 years of my working life working in public transport in this country; the right hon. Gentleman cannot make the same claim.

Mr. Redwood: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the figures for the last three years of Conservative investment in London Transport are £955 million, £1,114 million and £1,060 million? This year—a year of planning and budgeting by the Labour Government—the figure is £564 million. Of course the Conservative Government's planned investment was lower: we were going to privatise and bring in private finance, so much of the investment would not count as public spending. Surely the fair contrast is between three years of £1 billion a year investment under the Conservatives and three years of miserable investment under Labour, with the figure falling to £564 million this year?

Mr. Prescott: I made it clear that the figures to which I refer are those for projected expenditure for investment in the underground over three years. The right hon. Gentleman refers to the three years prior to that, but he should acknowledge that much of the money was lost on the Jubilee line, because of the Conservative Government's incompetence in negotiating a contract that has led to an overspend of about £1 billion. That is a constant problem of the underground with which I have to deal: when I find money for investment, it is sucked away into the Jubilee line. I shall have more to say about that shortly.
It is interesting to note that the Opposition motion mentions both transport and planning.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but may I leave with him a hallmark of the Tory years drawn from the London

underground? It is to travel on the underground and see broken-down escalators throughout the whole system and little old ladies protesting to rail guards about having to carry their bags up stairs. That went on for years and years—it was hard to leave the House of Commons and find an underground station in which the escalators were working. That is the hallmark of the Tory years, and we remember it.

Mr. Prescott: I remember it well, too. Anyone who travels on the underground has witnessed that deterioration over the many years of Tory Administration. The Select Committees of the House of Commons have investigated and confirmed the level of disinvestment in the underground, and we are witnessing the consequences of that long period of disinvestment.
I should like to remind the House of the Labour Government's inheritance, because I did not recognise it from the description offered by the right hon. Member for Wokingham. Let me give one or two facts which can be found in the books, some of which the right hon. Gentleman has before him. Eighteen years of clear Tory misrule were dominated by deregulation and privatisation—the concept that competition could solve any problem. The consequences were that our national rail networks were broken up and privatised, worsening the service and weakening regulation. I do not suppose that anyone denies that—it is in the newspapers almost every day.
The bus industry was deregulated and the evidence of the consequences is absolutely clear: bus networks were broken up, raising fares and reducing the number of passengers by one third. Curiously, the only place where the number of bus passengers increased was the London area, where buses were not deregulated. Where regulation prevailed in the bus industry, the results were a better service and an increased number of passengers. The factors that undermined bus services were deregulation and privatisation. I have already mentioned the £1.2 billion backlog of investment in London Underground and the £400 million cut made in the last Tory Budget—again, the figures are there for all to see.
The Tories' massive £200 million cut in road maintenance expenditure resulted in roads being in their worst state since surveys began. The document containing that fact was published only recently, but it covered a period of Tory Administration. Inevitably, congestion increased, despite roughly £16 billion being spent on the roads programme. In 1979, there were 42 motor cars per kilometre of road, whereas by 1997, that figure had increased to 60 motor cars per kilometre of road—a increase of almost 50 per cent.
According to the Confederation of British Industry, the cost of congestion to the United Kingdom economy was £20 billion. Furthermore, up to 24,000 premature deaths were caused by exposure to air pollution. The Tory policies forced more people to rely on their car, and tilted the balance from public transport to the private car. Consequently, the Tories were responsible for introducing the term "gridlock" to Britain. Such congestion led to massive costs and frustration.
The House probably thinks that I am being somewhat biased, so I shall pray in aid someone else's description of the transport system:
We have gridlock. The rush hour begins just after 6 am and is still in full flow three hours later. In many parts of the South East the traffic queue for one junction runs into the queue for the next,


and for the one beyond that. The station car park is full. The queue for Heathrow is long. The M25 regularly seizes up. Everyone tells me something should be done about it.
Absolutely right, but who made those comments? The right hon. Member for Wokingham. It is interesting that he wrote that, not last week, or last month, but in 1996, after 16 years of Tory Administration and failed transport policy. Despite all the rhetoric that we have just heard, that is what he wrote when he was in the throes of another election within his party. The right hon. Gentleman was writing of the collapse of the transport system and the collapse of Tory party policy. How else can he explain that article? It was an attack on the failure of the transport policies of the Conservative Government of which he was a member.

Mr. Redwood: I do not see it like that. My article shows that the country became a lot more prosperous under the Conservatives and that people wanted to use their cars, so we needed to make some improvements to the transport system to accommodate their wishes. That does not give the right hon. Gentleman an excuse to come along and make the problem 10 times worse, with his bus lane on the M4 and his closure of half the tube system. Instead, it means that he should follow our policy by privatising the tube system and clearing the roads.

Mr. Prescott: Let us not pretend that traffic jams started with new Labour. They were with us before, and they became considerably worse because of the policies pursued by the previous Administration.
Let me give another quote from the same article, in which the right hon. Gentleman offered ideas about how to improve the transport system. Under the headline, "How I would free drivers from gridlock", he wrote:
The main A roads, especially the main routes into London, should be freed of any traffic management impediments"—
such as speed cameras, speed humps and so on. In other words, "deregulation of the roads". The right hon. Gentleman regards driving on the left as an affront to personal liberty, and traffic lights as an attack on human rights, but can the House imagine him on the M4 if the changes that he suggests were made? The frustration of trying to travel on such a congested deregulated road would cause him to try to return to his home planet, Vulcan, with a cry of "Beam me up, Scotty!"
No wonder he does not like to acknowledge the positive results of the M4 bus lane pilot. Whatever the rhetoric in the papers or from Opposition Members, it is clear that, in the first two weeks of the M4 bus lane pilot, 3,500 buses and taxis improved their journey times by 16 minutes, and car journeys were shortened by two minutes in the rush hour. Furthermore, there is a projected 20 per cent. cut in accidents. I believe that result to be win, win, win, but all that we hear from the right hon. Gentleman is whinge, whinge, whinge.
Let me make it clear: I am certainly not anti-car. I am for ever being called Two-Jag Prescott, so I assume that that means that I love motor vehicles—and I do. The right hon. Member for Wokingham said that he has two Jaguars; they are beautiful cars and I like them. However, that does not mean to say that I do not think there should be a better public transport policy and that we should seek to encourage people to use public transport more and their vehicles less—as each of us must do. I certainly observe that rule. I am not anti-car, but I am anti-congestion.
I assume we all share that view. The car has done much to improve the lives of people in this country and I am determined that we will do all that we can to ensure that the benefits of car ownership are not lost to future generations. However, those benefits will be lost if we allow congestion to grow at its current rate. There will be 6 million more cars on the roads in 20 years if we do not effect some kind of change. Try to consider how much road space will be necessary to accommodate 6 million more cars. We cannot build our way out of the problem—just ask Lord Parkinson who, as Secretary of State, proposed 14 new roads for London. Londoners soon made it absolutely clear what they thought about that road programme.
We cannot build our way out of the problem—and that is not only my conclusion but that of the previous Administration in its last transport Green Paper. The Conservatives advocated moves to better public transport systems and the shadow transport spokesman said that he agreed with that policy. The previous Government came to that conclusion late in the day—after 17 years in government, they decided that they had got it wrong. The Opposition transport spokesman admitted that today, when he said:
Mistakes have been made; we came quite late to this whole issue.
He is probably right about that, but we suffered a great deal as a result of the Conservatives' policy mistakes.
The worst thing for motorists would be to follow the same route as the Tories—the right hon. Member for Wokingham seemed to advocate that course of action in his speech—and surrender to congestion. That would be bad for the economy, bad for the environment and bad for the motorists—just ask them. Doing nothing is not an option; we must make changes if we are to have any influence over congestion.

Mr. Efford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who claim that the bus lane on the M4 is the cause of congestion are implying that there have never been any problems on that motorway? I have worked in London's transport system and I can vouch for the fact that there were enormous problems. Does my right hon. Friend agree also that traffic jams on the M4 are a sign of things to come if we do not do something to make public transport flow freely and shift people out of their cars and on to public transport?

Mr. Prescott: It is about offering people a better choice. Our policy aims precisely to allow people freely to make the decision to use public transport more and their cars less. It is a voluntary choice, but other European countries—which have more cars per head of population than we do—have managed to persuade their motorists to use their cars less and public transport more. People do not use public transport in this country because that system has been run down.
We believe that things can get better and that we can achieve change in Britain. We made clear in our White Paper that we want a transport system that is safe, clean, efficient and fair. We will achieve those objectives by prioritising and improving public transport; by improving traffic management and road maintenance, not by deregulating the road system; by creating a more integrated transport system and linking transport with planning and a wider range of Government policies.
We cannot do that overnight—anybody who believes that we can is in cloud cuckoo land. To make those kinds of changes and to persuade people to make different decisions about how they will travel and move from A to B is not an easy task. However, it must be done. Doing nothing is not a possibility. We have to improve the situation, and that will take time.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: As the right hon. Gentleman thinks that there are difficult choices to make, I would be grateful for some clarification. I presume that he approves of the charges for workplace car parking spaces that are proposed in the west midlands. Who does he think should pay the £250 parking charge: the employee or the employers?

Mr. Prescott: That is an interesting point to which I shall turn in a minute. I remind the hon. Lady that that was the policy of the previous Government—they produced a Green Paper on the subject. At the time, the hon. Lady was writing about what was said in Parliament. If she reads that document, she will find that that was Conservative policy. One Opposition transport spokesman is saying yes and another is saying no. A transport spokesman has said from time to time, "We came late to it, but we have begun to make those changes."
We are making a start. We have made improvements in our first two years in government. We have increased resources for public transport and local transport by £1.8 billion. We have established a shadow strategic rail authority that will deliver tougher rail regulation. We will raise road maintenance spending, through an extra £600 million over three years, to nearly £3 billion a year. As a result of those policies, we have seen an increase in the number of bus passengers in England for the first time in decades. Those figures have not increased in this country, year after year and decade after decade but, now, more people are choosing to use the bus system to travel from A to B.
We have allocated £150 million to rural transport services—about which I hear a great deal. Our programme for rural bus services has produced, within 18 months, 1,500 new and improved services that people in rural areas are using and that they wanted and needed. The rural audit, which was conducted a year or so ago, made it clear that people in rural areas wanted a better public transport system. The right hon. Gentleman might not want that, but I assure him that rural constituents throughout the country are very pleased with our improvements to rural transport services.

Mr. Owen Paterson: rose—

Mr. Prescott: I cannot give way.
The rail industry has seen a 14 per cent. increase in passengers and there has been a 12 per cent. increase in rail freight since the general election. An extra 1,000 trains have been running each day since the general election and more than 70 new freight terminals have opened. Twelve new railway stations are opening this year. We are restoring a new confidence to the public transport system in this country.
We are taking the necessary long-term decisions. We produced a transport White Paper—the first in 20 years. The previous Administration produced only a Green Paper. In view of what they did to public transport, one would have thought they might have had further thoughts on the subject. The White Paper made 81 recommendations, 70 of which have already been implemented. Ten recommendations require legislation and six are enshrined in legislation that is either before the House or is about to come before us. There has been tremendous implementation of the transport White Paper.
It is a radical document that addresses the problems of transport and the environment; congestion and pollution. Measures include providing powers for local authorities to use congestion charging and workplace parking levies. They are part of the toolbox of measures for dealing with transport problems. That is the most targeted way of tackling congestion. It is also the view of the previous Administration—although that seems to be contested. Their transport Green Paper, produced by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), stated:
The Government will therefore discuss with the local authority associations how best to take matters forward on these topics and with a presumption in favour of introducing legislation in due course to enable congestion charging to be implemented".
That was the Conservative party's policy when it left office. I do not know whether that remains Tory policy—perhaps we will be told in the winding-up speech.
We did something else: we endorsed the principle of hypothecation.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Meaninglessly.

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman says that, yet all moneys raised as a result will go directly to financing the public transport system. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether the Conservatives endorse hypothecation as a way of financing public transport? The right hon. Gentleman talked about the poll tax. As I understand it, he was in charge of the policy unit that devised the poll tax under Mrs. Thatcher. Perhaps it remains fresh in his mind: another disastrous experiment in local government financing. The right hon. Gentleman's public transport ideas would be as bad as those of the previous Tory Administration.
This Government believe in strong public-private partnerships, in which the risk is carried by the private sector. In recent years, a great deal of my time has been spent trying to rescue the incompetent deals done by the Tories. We salvaged the channel tunnel rail link, which was on the brink of collapse, refusing to meet the extra demands for £1 billion. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) might laugh, but it was a stupid beggar on her side of the House who agreed to that contract. The company then came to me and asked me for another £1 billion. The company in charge of the Jubilee line is now doing the same thing.
I was able to renegotiate the channel tunnel rail link contract, and about 10 per cent. of that project has now been completed, on budget and on time. If the project's costs overrun, the company pays them and, if it makes a profit, the taxpayer gets a share. That is a fundamental difference in the way in which we deal with public-private partnerships. That will govern our approach to future


developments, particularly on the London Underground. The Jubilee line is a classic example of the projects to which I have referred. The contract was not well negotiated, and contractors were able to get a considerable sum from the taxpayer because we had to meet obligations. That was due purely to the incompetence of the previous Government.
In conclusion, I shall deal with out-of-town shopping. I did not intend to mention this matter, but the right hon. Member for Wokingham mentioned it. It is a bit much for members of the previous Administration to talk about transport and planning, when one of the greatest effects on congestion and the demands placed on our motorways was the growth in out-of-town shopping.
In 1979, there were 150 out-of-town shopping centres and, by 1997, there were nearly 1,000. The Conservatives opened the doors for those centres; they let rip. Now, we have demands for 16 lanes and traffic lights to deal with the traffic on the motorways leading to the big shopping centres in places such as Sheffield. We do not believe in allowing such development. It has been disastrous, as the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning made clear, on behalf of the Prime Minister, only last week. It is only the press who prattle on and try to suggest that such changes should be made.
If the Opposition are having difficulty in figuring out whether the Asda deal will have an effect on transport policy, perhaps they should ask the Conservative Member who is Asda's director. He could tell them the answer because he sold the company to the Americans.
This is a typical example of an Opposition debate because it flies in the face of the evidence, ignores all that the Tories did in their 18 years in power and offers us no solution to transport problems. There is an awful lot of political rhetoric and very little substance. The Opposition made a tactical error in choosing to link planning and transport in a debate, because we are linking planning and transport policy as never before. It was right that we brought together environment and transport in one Department because that was a major step towards the integrated decision making that is needed. As I have said, the Tory record on planning was disastrous.
This debate demonstrates that the Tories want to build more roads, but they want to save the countryside. They oppose congestion, but in government they failed to tackle it. They want good public transport, but in government they dismantled the rail and bus networks. Most of them want to tackle climate change, but they reject the means to do so.
The Government recognise the scale of the problem that we inherited. The consultation on our White Paper reveals that there is now a consensus for radical change in transport policy. For far too long, public transport has been treated as shabby and second class. We want, and intend to deliver, a better-quality integrated transport system to offer more choice and achieve a better balance between public transport and car dependence. That will be better for the economy and quality of life, and it will offer better social justice.

Mr. Stephen Day: I enjoyed the Deputy Prime Minister's speech. I find it amusing that he criticised my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) for the quality of his jokes.

All I can say is that when my right hon. Friend makes the House laugh, it is usually intentional, which is not the case when the Deputy Prime Minister gets to his feet. I find his comments amazing after his recent embarrassing performance at the Dispatch Box.
I want to address my comments to three main areas of transport policy and connected planning policy. The first is the west coast main line. I speak as joint chairman of the all-party west coast main line group, and I should like to pay tribute to the group, particularly the work of my co-chairman, the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). The west coast main line is one of the most important transport features for my area and probably for the area extending up to the west of Scotland.
I declare an interest in this matter which is listed in the Register of Members' Interests. Some time ago, both chairmen of the all-party group were guests of Virgin Trains. We went to see the new tilting train mechanisms and designs that have been produced in Milan, which will eventually be built in Birmingham and Preston.
The second issue that I want to address is the Manchester airport eastern link road, which I raised only last week in the House. I shall continue to raise that matter with Ministers until they have the common sense to finish a motorway that has already been started and not to cancel the rest of the project. The third issue is the impact on the area around my constituency resulting from the Government's decision to approve the application for a second runway at Manchester airport.
I draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that there has been an exhibition about the west coast main line in the Upper Waiting Hall today. The exhibition was sponsored by Railtrack and Virgin Trains, and a Railtrack press release refers to a new £35 million contract for work to be done on the west coast main line. Phase 1 is under way, and phase 2 is the subject of the press release. The project means that by 2002 there will be new trains on that line travelling at 125 mph, and by 2005 they should be travelling at 140 mph. That will greatly improve travel times to Euston from Manchester and other places along the line.
I have always approached the subject from a non-party political point of view, as has the all-party group. Having listened to the Deputy Prime Minister's comments, I will not be surprised if, when success is eventually achieved, the Government tell us that it is all their doing. I do not doubt that the investment on the west coast main line is long overdue, but the truth is that it is coming about for the simple, practical reason that the railways were privatised. It would never have happened otherwise.

Mr. Prescott: Under any Government?

Mr. Day: Under any Government. The Deputy Prime Minister knows full well—better, perhaps, than anyone else in the Government—that however much he, personally, may be committed to expenditure, the Treasury decides that the money is not available. The dead hand of the Treasury stopped investment in the British Rail network for years. That investment is now coming about because of privatisation.

Mr. Miller: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). However, if the hon. Gentleman believes


that a policy introduced by the previous Administration will deliver to the west coast main line the results that he saw in Milan, will he be voting for our amendment, rather than the original motion, which says that there are
no policies to increase…rail capacity"?

Mr. Day: The policy currently being implemented is our policy. This Government have simply continued our policies and run the rail network that the previous Government created. This Government have no initiatives or vision about how to deal with the rail network. There are improvements now only because the Government have not reversed the policy of privatisation. Thank God that they have not, because private investment is being made in the west coast main line, and its success is vital.
The west coast main line is the busiest route not just in the United Kingdom but in Europe, so it is essential that it is modernised to the extent announced. With investment from Railtrack, Virgin Trains and Angel Trains, which is buying the lease for the trains from the Fiat-Alstom consortium—all major private companies—the long overdue improvements in the service on the line, which my constituents and those from Euston to the west of Glasgow have a right to expect, will ultimately be made.

Mr. Norman Baker: Of course I acknowledge the need to modernise the west coast main line, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that such modernisation has been rather over-hyped by Railtrack and that it is dressing up the renewal of basic infrastructure as new investment? In fact, on some stretches of the line, the maximum speed limit will not increase.

Mr. Day: If the hon. Gentleman knows anything about the west coast main line he will know that many of the current delays are caused by the use of old rolling stock, which Virgin is still running. Many of the trains are ex-British Rail—30 years old and some. There will be improvement with new rolling stock, which will obviously be able to travel faster, but only when the line is straightened and the signalling system is upgraded. Today's Railtrack press statement sets out clearly that the bulk of the £35 million contract will be spent on new signalling and points systems at various places on the track which cause delays and bottlenecks outside stations such as Euston.
All that is as a result of privatisation. If privatisation had not happened, we would not be seeing the improvements that, thank goodness, we are beginning to witness. There has been criticism of Virgin—I would be the first to say that much of it has been valid—but at least the company and its partners on the west coast main line project have the guts to put the money up front that will eventually bring about much needed improvements.
I accept readily that, in trying to reduce traffic congestion on motorways and roads, it is sensible to encourage people to use trains. Anybody with any common sense realises that, but we should not destroy alternative ways of solving such problems or force people out of their cars. The attitude that there are too many cars on the road, so people must be stopped from driving and travelling to out-of-town shopping centres in which people want to shop, is shared by old and new Labour. It is not surprising that the Deputy Prime Minister fronts the policy.
There is no question that the congestion difficulties that out-of-town shopping centres have undoubtedly brought about must be dealt with. But the answer for new Labour is to tell people that they cannot shop in such places. It says, "That is wrong, bad. Do as you are told. Do as I say, not as I do." That is not the answer to Britain's transport problems.
On the M6 in Staffordshire—[Interruption.] I want the Deputy Prime Minister to listen for a second, if that is possible. There is a minor problem but a great irritant caused by congestion on the M6 in Staffordshire as a result of necessary work—I do not dispute that—to improve lane signalling, which is being carried out by the right hon. Gentleman's Department.
There are logjams on that section of the motorway when the road is busy; traffic often comes to a halt in any case. With two-mile gaps between seven or eight sets of roadworks, there are 50-mile an hour speed limit signs. Therefore, even when the road is reasonably empty, traffic slows. It is not as though the work is going on throughout Staffordshire. One drives for miles and miles at a restricted speed limit, and what does one see? One sees three men and a digger at the side of the road. That infuriates drivers. I want the Deputy Prime Minister to ask his Department whether it is necessary to restrict the speed limit on almost all the M6 throughout Staffordshire—these works are to continue until March next year.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Next point.

Mr. Day: Many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents drive on that stretch of road every day. I hope that they take note of his comments. He obviously has no interest in the concerns expressed by his constituents who use that stretch of motorway.
My constituents are being failed dramatically by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Government on a number of issues. The cancelled bypass around Manchester airport is only one of them. Many of my constituents live on the flight path to Manchester airport. The flight path is no great detriment to the lives of the majority of my constituents, many of whom—myself included—are proud of the airport.
In order to deal with congestion in the sky, the airport authorities have for many years asked for the power to fine aircraft that stray from the flight path over my densely populated constituency. Despite the fact that the Government agree with that principle, and that about 18 months before the election the previous Government agreed also, the airport authorities are still waiting for the regulations to be brought before the House. I simply appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister to do something for my constituency. One thing would be to enact what the Government claim they support and allow airports the power to fine airlines who stray from flight paths. Will he seriously consider that?

Mr. Prescott: I have not found the best way of doing it.

Mr. Day: Such sedentary comments give me the impression that the Deputy Prime Minister is very flippant about the matter. I hope that he takes it seriously because, for many of my constituents, it is a major issue. I simply


ask him to ensure that his Department finds time to put the regulations before the House and thereby ensure that airports have the powers that they want. If he asks the Manchester airport authorities what powers are required, he will find out—because they support every word that I am saying.
Up and down the country, towns and villages are awaiting one development to rid their communities of pollution: bypasses. This Deputy Prime Minister and this Government have cancelled their one hope of being saved from pollution. Bypasses are the one way in which communities that suffer dense traffic may be relieved in the short term and for the future, yet the resolution of their problems has been taken away from under their noses. [Interruption.] The Deputy Prime Minister will hear about this whether he likes it or not.
The bypass to which I shall refer is a third part built. Nevertheless, the remaining two parts—the Poynton bypass and the western section of the Manchester airport eastern link road—have been cancelled. That is a joke. The proposed road has always been known as the Manchester airport eastern link road, yet the Government have cancelled the building of the part that links the road to the airport. It is unbelievable.

Mr. Prescott: It is not the only road to the airport.

Mr. Day: I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to visit my constituency. He and his Ministers have been asked on many occasions to see it for themselves so that I can prove to them that what I am saying is true. I would like to see the Deputy Prime Minister walk down Woodford road between Bramall and Woodford and see the reaction that he received. I advise him to take his Jaguar so that he can make a quick getaway. I would like to see him walk along Finney way in Heald Green, where the missing section of the link road should be. It has no apparent chance of being built with this Government's attitude.

Mr. Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend remind his constituents that the Deputy Prime Minister found £63 million to improve the road in his own constituency?

Mr. Day: My constituents would be surprised, but I doubt whether they would be shocked by that.
I must impress on Ministers on the Treasury Bench that my constituents in Cheadle, Bramall, Heald Green and Woodford desperately want the bypass. Seven thousand signatures were collected, but not by people going round knocking on doors and presenting petitions. The petitions were simply left in local post offices, and within two months, 7,000 signatures were collected from people who wanted the bypass. Despite the fact that the previous Government had given a starting date for the completion of the bypass, the present Government cancelled it.
The story of Cheadle's missing bypass is not uncommon. The only thing that sets it apart from instances in other parts of the country is that in our case, part of the bypass already exists. That is the nonsense that my constituents will never understand.
I also do not understand why the Government do not see the logic of completing the bypass, especially as the same Government gave permission for the second runway at Manchester, which will dramatically increase the traffic

flows to Manchester airport. Manchester airport admits that even though it is providing for extra rail links and other services and forms of transport to get to the airport, the majority of the increased journeys to the airport through my constituency will be by road.
The bypass must be finished. It is beyond belief that a Government who gave permission for the second runway have cancelled the road link to the airport that is meant to service it. The entire issue needs to be thought through carefully, because it affects a wider area than the Manchester airport eastern link road. It affects the Poynton area in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and the constituency of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), because of the eastern section of the MAELR, known as the Poynton bypass, which has been cancelled, and the Hazel Grove A6(M) bypass. The three motorway projects together are supposed to link up to the M60 and provide the necessary relief for the whole of what is known as the south-east quadrant of Greater Manchester.
All that my constituents have seen as a result of the Government's green policy is their one chance of escape from pollution being taken away from them. That is the only change that they have seen. In its place is a promised study into the transport difficulties of the south-east quadrant of Greater Manchester. What a mouthful. I do not know precisely what that means, but on behalf of my constituents I shall raise one or two points with Ministers.
First, I thank the Department for including at long last—it was not the original intention—Stockport metropolitan borough council in the steering committee that is to be set up to appoint consultants for the study of the south-east quadrant of Greater Manchester.
Secondly, when the study gets under way, will it deal with the issue of the bypasses that have been cancelled, or will its aim be purely to find what the Government would call alternatives to those bypasses? I seek an assurance, as does the council in Stockport, that in the course of that study, the consultants will examine all aspects of transport policy, including the cancelled bypasses, and that the issue of roads will not be ignored.
The argument applies equally to other parts of the country. I hope that the Government's rhetoric will not be matched by their actions, and that they will not ignore the possibility of any bypass providing a solution in any area. I fear that that will happen, but I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me.
Thirdly, as part of the study, will the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers consider coming to the area to see the difficulties that my constituents face? Since the road programme was cancelled, I have asked by letter and I have asked in the Chamber for Ministers to come and see for themselves. On no occasion have they given me a positive response.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and for notifying me of his intention to raise the matter. For my constituents in Hazel Grove, the road programme is vital. Does he agree that if the Minister visited the area, he would see that the conventional road network is no way able to take the


additional traffic that will result from the development of the second runway, and that the Government have failed to take proper account of that?

Mr. Day: I agree. By approving the second runway, the Government recognised the importance of the north-west. They recognised the importance to the north-west of Manchester airport. In setting up the study, they recognised to some extent that there was a difficulty with transport in the so-called south-east quadrant of Greater Manchester, yet they took away one of the main solutions to that difficulty that was originally planned because the airport was expanding.
Given my constituents' expectation over 20 to 30 years that the road would be built, given that a third of it is already built, given that the previous Government set a starting date, and given that the second runway is imminent, the Government can no longer hide behind a transport study and deny my constituents the protection and the service that they have every right to expect that the Government will provide, to ensure that their environment, which the Government claim that they are seeking to protect, is protected for the future.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: We surrender!

Mr. Day: It will be a nice day for me and my constituents when the Government surrender. For many other communities throughout the country—not just in Hazel Grove, Poynton, Bramall, Woodford, Cheadle Hulme and Heald Green—the Government must formulate a coherent transport policy. If they stopped restricting travel by car, assisted drivers to get where they want, provided investment for alternatives and tried to attract drivers to alternatives, rather than forcing them to use such alternatives and bringing nothing but despair to areas such as mine, that would indeed be a happy day.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The transport White Paper is the first major attempt for more than a generation to address seriously the problems of transport in Britain. The Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs made it clear that we regarded that as a tremendous advance, and we looked in considerable detail at the aspects of transport that we thought needed not only to be highlighted but in many instances advanced.
The debate has been interesting because of Conservative Members' tremendous insistence on roads. Roads are an integral part of the transport system, but anyone in this country who talks about congestion without mentioning the alternatives to roads, the advance in hypothecation and the first attempt for well over 20 years by any Government seriously to address the problems of public transport is running away from everything that is important.
Under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, we are at long last seeing a specific attempt to address a number of practical problems that have a direct impact on our economy. Transport and the economy are directly linked. That is not an accident. If we cannot move people and goods around the country,

we are unable to benefit as we should. Indeed, aviation and the rail system have a direct impact on gross domestic product.
It was clear from the Select Committee's work that a number of areas should be addressed. I welcome the discussion about the Strategic Rail Authority. The sooner we get real parliamentary muscle behind the shadow Strategic Rail Authority, the sooner we shall begin to get changes. The previous Government fragmented the railway system like a cheap glass and left others to pick up the shards.
I was interested in what the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) had to say about the west coast main line. What the hon. Gentleman did not manage to say was that Railtrack is so concerned about the signalling system that it has issued an instruction to its contractors not to touch signalling. That is for fear that the system is so old that it will accidentally cease to operate, making the signals automatically go red and causing an advancing train the problems that we may have seen in the recent accident in the Winsford area—although I am not saying that such problems were the reason for the accident.

Mr. Day: On the signalling matter that the hon. Lady raised, today's Railtrack press release says:
Phase Two, which will enable Virgin to increase train speeds … and provide additional capacity for other users, requires the development of a new moving block transmission-based signalling system.
Phase 1 of the project involves £596 million to deal with the problem. Phase 2 will deal with it more specifically.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman is very sincere, but I do not have the faith in press notices that he appears to have. Let me draw to his attention the £27 billion investment announced by Railtrack recently. If he reads my report, he will see not only how we examined that figure, but how it strangely became £11 billion and then, when we broke it down, only £1.6 billion. Railtrack uses creative accounting, but we discovered that its large investment programme is a combination of money that it would have had to spend on maintenance; schemes that would need even more public money for matching; and action on pinch points which have been outstanding since Railtrack took over.
Suddenly, that £27 billion collapsed—right down to about £1.6 billion—and all those grandiose schemes disappeared into thin air. We are of course told that they will happen—if the taxpayer finds even more money; if we do not count maintenance; if Railtrack manages to use the money that we regard as absolutely essential for reinvestment in the signalling system; and if, somehow or other, Railtrack comes up with a new plan. That is ot what all that will mean.
I am delighted that Railtrack is issuing notices saying that it will do fantastic things in the future, but I have the strange, old-fashioned idea that I should like it to do something in the present. Although that may sound rather unimaginative of me, Railtrack is walking away with large amounts of taxpayers' money. When it appeared before the Public Accounts Committee, there was detailed discussion of what it had spent on consultants and privatisation. It said that it had had to spend money because it needed highly specialised information, but the reality is that it is neither entrepreneurial nor efficient—


and nor, so far as one can see, is it capable of managing major schemes. If that is the case, any problems that will arise will arise not from its spending £27 billion but because we may be asking it to do something that it is not capable of achieving.

Mr. Redwood: Given the hon. Lady's comments on Railtrack, is she suspicious of that organisation's being allowed to be the only bidder—the preferred bidder—for a third of the tube? In view of her comments on its conduct, would she like to say to the Deputy Prime Minister that perhaps he should not allow that?

Mrs. Dunwoody: The nice thing about my relationship with my right hon. Friend is that I frequently say things to him that he understands without any difficulty at all. That situation has existed for at least the past 20 years and I do not expect it to change overnight.
I am suspicious of Railtrack—that will not come as a surprise to my right hon. Friend, because I have been telling him that ever since it was created—and I shall continue to be suspicious of Railtrack.
The Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member created a merry-go-round of taxpayers' money, which meant that Railtrack finished up with the bulk of the cash. Of course it is one of the strongest players in the game. The fact that I do not trust Railtrack does not mean that it does not have the money. That is one of the things that worry me.
The Select Committee report suggested to the Deputy Prime Minister—who, I am sure, paid great attention to it—that one solution would be for us to say to Railtrack, "In future you will get access charges, but a large amount of the money that you collect at present will be diverted to the Strategic Rail Authority, so that Railtrack can be paid after it has invested in the schemes that it promises." I do not consider that an unrealistic attitude. I hope that the Government will seriously consider whether Railtrack has fulfilled all its promises, and whether it is doing what it said it would do or is simply walking away with an enormous profit for its shareholders on the basis of extremely inadequate management techniques.
I believe that the Deputy Prime Minister is doing such a good job that he needs to talk seriously to some of his colleagues. I do not mean just the Treasury, although, in my experience, all Governments need to speak clearly to Treasuries. The Deputy Prime Minister has succeeded in moving us towards a system of hypothecation. This is really the first time that it has been clearly understood that, if a large amount of money is raised from taxpayers in connection with transport—whether through road tolls or in the form of direct taxation—it is easy to persuade those taxpayers that an advance is being made in transport policy if they can see what is happening to their money.

Mr. Eric Pickles: The hon. Lady is right to suggest that hypothecation is possibly the most exciting change in transport policy that we have seen so far. When I had the honour to serve with her on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, we were very careful about our drafting in regard to hypothecation.
Does the hon. Lady agree that it is regrettable that, after the Deputy Prime Minister achieved the change, an official in his Department—in connivance with a Treasury

official—changed the rules slightly, allowing sums taken for hypothecation to be spread and to be spent on matters other than transport? That means that the money goes straight back into the Treasury coffers.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Deputy Prime Minister has secured a 10-year time scale, which I think will enable the public transport system to be transformed. I wish that he had secured a longer time, but I am sure that any incoming Labour Government will be able to continue his excellent transport plans, and that, when we see the advances that are made over the next 10 years, we shall be able to plan for even more hypothecation in the future.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I do not want to take too long, but I am terribly honoured that the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene.

Mr. Jenkin: I reciprocate the sentiment. However, we remain suspicious of hypothecation. Unless it also means additionality, hypothecation means nothing. According to a written answer in Hansard dated 20 July 1998, there is no public expenditure provision at all for London Underground after April 2000. If that is so, does it not mean that Government grant for the public-private partnership will be replaced by the revenues from congestion taxes and parking charges? Where is the fairness in that, given that motorists are already being fleeced by the Treasury? Why should the grant be taken away as well?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I do not share this terrible worry about the motorist, for a very simple reason. If we had continued to take no action in relation to either road transport or public transport, the whole road system would have been in continual gridlock.

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Lady is changing the subject.

Mrs. Dunwoody: No. It is not possible to deal with a problem by ignoring it; that just makes it a hundred times worse. The present Government have grasped the nettle of difficult decision making. In many instances, they are telling people who use public transport but want to retain their cars, "That's fine, but you should be aware of the cost to both the environment and the quality of life for people who live in cities—and the cost to the facilities that you yourselves want."
I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will talk to the Home Office about the whole question of police enforcement. So far, there has been no discussion of the impact of road injuries, of the need to set targets, or of the need to accept the fact that, although the number of injuries is going down, the number of serious injuries continues to rise. I hope that we will be able to say to the Home Office that now is the time to put traffic law enforcement much higher up the list. It should be part of chief constables' core duties. They should find it possible to have considerably more energy directed towards traffic law enforcement. If they are not able to do so, the Government will have to consider seriously the creation of a traffic police. If they do not, we will pay a price.
The role of the Home Office goes beyond that: it needs to look at the whole question of crime on public transport. There will undoubtedly be positive benefits from policies


that allow local authorities to enter into partnership with police authorities to ensure that there is better policing of public transport early in the morning and late at night. Women need to be assured that they can travel safely and comfortably to the place where they need to be.
I hope that private Members' legislation will be introduced to allow us to impound illegally operated lorries. I was sad that such a power was not in one of this year's private Members' Bills. It would save lives. It is essential. That gap in the legislation needs to be addressed.
The Strategic Rail Authority will produce enormous changes in the next five years. The operating companies will be required to work together. It is only since the Deputy Prime Minister succeeded in persuading them to do a lot more things in common that we have at last addressed the whole question of information, and of information systems that actually work.
I meant to bring along a marvellous letter that I received today from Virgin Trains, after two months: they were sorry that I had used the internet to ask for information on a train direct to Manchester and had been told that I should change at Crewe, but that was because I had tapped in the wrong information—I should have asked for trains not just in the next hour but throughout the day. Had I done so, I would apparently have got information about more than the one train. I explained to Virgin when I wrote that I knew that Crewe was the centre of the universe but that it came as a considerable surprise that it had just learned that as well.
We talk about what Virgin will do with its new tilting trains. We all want new efficient rolling stock. We want it to be built in this country. We build good engines in Crewe. It would be nice if people did not import them from elsewhere, but bought them from this country. However, no matter how good the rolling stock, if the rails are not there, it will not make any difference to the speed, efficiency or safety of the trains.
Railways have strange habits: all trains have to run on rails. Unless Railtrack is prepared to provide high-quality rails, many of our plans for an integrated railway system will be as nought. The quality of investment and of equipment and the safety of signalling equipment will be so substandard that we shall be faced with continuing problems.
For the first time in 20 years, we have a Minister who understands that transport has to be one of the most important policies that any Government espouse. All of us want changes in education and health. All of us understand that constitutional change frequently pushes out other, more domestic, measures. The reality for our constituents and everybody fighting their way on to the underground system is that, unless we get high-quality, safe public transport in place, none of the things that we want for our country in the new millennium will be possible, and we shall all suffer as a result.

Mr. Norman Baker: I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I agree with most of what she said, as I usually do on transport matters. I welcome, too, the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister and his team have not left

the Chamber throughout the debate. That example might be followed by some of their Front-Bench colleagues in other Departments.
I am afraid that the Tories are in opposition mode. Their opposition is characterised by cynical opportunism and a cavalier disregard for the facts. I listened to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) introduce the debate, but I did not like what I heard. Regardless of his portfolio, he always plays the man rather than the ball. On genetic modification he attacks Lord Sainsbury, and on transport he attacks the Deputy Prime Minister. The Government have made some mistakes on transport, and I shall come to them, but we need a mature debate rather than the personal attacks that we get from the Opposition, especially from the right hon. Member for Wokingham. He exaggerates the Government's faults to an absurd degree and stands with his hands clasped and a halo on his head pretending that year zero started on 1 May 1997. In truth, the inheritance from the previous Tory Government was lamentable.
Just in case there is any suspicion that the Conservatives could be the saviours of transport policy, let me remind the right hon. Member for Wokingham of the record of his county council in Buckinghamshire. I have chosen Buckinghamshire because it is one of the few councils that has been solidly Tory year after year. Even in the dark days, it was the one county council controlled by the Conservatives. In 1994–95 it spent £52.03 per head on road maintenance—an issue that the Conservatives are always keen to mention. In 1998–99, that was down to £33.71. In 1994–95 it was spending a total of £14.8 million on road maintenance and by 1997–98 that was down to £8.5 million. This year, the council has stopped producing the figure for its council tax leaflets so we are not sure what it is, but as I understand it, it has dropped still further. That is the gap between the rhetoric which promises that everything will be wonderful under the Conservatives and the reality when they are in control of a council. It is not a record of which to be proud.
During their 18 years in government they had a twin-track policy of private and public transport. The private element was the great car economy, which was the phrase of the Prime Minister of the day, now Baroness Thatcher. Another boast was that they had the biggest road building programme since the Romans. They are still on the same track. Their motion today criticises the Government for having
no policies to increase road or rail capacity in line with traffic growth forecasts".
The motion moved by the Conservatives on 18 March condemned the Government for
cutting the programme of motorway and trunk road improvements to 37 schemes, which will increase congestion and pollution which the Government say they oppose".—[Official Report, 18 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 1322.]
How depressing that is.
During their 18 years, the Conservative Government made many mistakes on transport policy. They attempted to build us out of problems year after year while watching congestion get worse and worse. Increasing numbers of environmental areas and sites of special scientific interest were destroyed. The incidence of asthma increased—one in six children now has asthma. There were more and more health problems, and the Confederation of British


Industry identified £19 billion a year as being lost because of congestion. Despite all that, it was not until the end of their time in government that we had a little relief when they at last recognised that it is not possible to build our way out of a problem. The report from the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment—produced by the then Department of Transport—recognised that building more roads encourages more traffic. The Conservatives finally accepted that—hooray for that.
The Tories cut their road-building programme dramatically, and cited environmental reasons for doing so. We thought that they had made many mistakes over 8 years, but at last they had recognised the fact that building more roads was not the answer. We now find out that in opposition they have unlearned that painful lesson, which took them so many years to learn. They are now back to where they were in the 1970s and 1980s. They think that if we build more and more roads, more and more bypasses, and more and more dual carriageways, then suddenly everything will be all right again. What nonsense.

Mr. Christopher Fraser: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain the fact that his hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) approved, assisted, co-operated with and supported the Newbury bypass.

Mr. Baker: I shall take that one head on. I did not approve of the Newbury bypass being built, and I have made that clear.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend does, though.

Mr. Baker: He does indeed. I do not approve of that bypass. It was not Liberal Democrat policy to build such a road.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member for Newbury is standing as leader of the hon. Gentleman's party. He may be its future leader.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I have to instruct the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) to be quiet.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a direct question, and I shall give him a direct and honest answer. I thought that it was a mistake to build that road, and I did not support it. It was not Liberal Democrat policy at the time, but it was supported by the local Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament.
When the shadow Transport Minister sums up, will he tell us exactly what his party's roads policy is? Is it, as the Conservative motion implies—they criticise the Government for not doing so—to increase road capacity in line with traffic growth forecasts? Are we back to meeting projected demand? Are we back to road-building programmes that meet the projected increase of 142 per cent., which is the 1989 figure? Are we back to covering the countryside in more and more concrete? If that is not Conservative policy, what is? What is the Conservatives' road-building programme? They criticise the Government

for knocking their programme down to 37 schemes, but how many roads are in the Conservative party's programme? Let us hear those facts from the Conservatives. If they are not prepared to say what their policy is, they should not criticise the Government in such a cavalier way.
The public transport strand of Conservative policy in the past 18 years was a total disaster. Rail fares increased by 74.8 per cent. above inflation between 1974 and 1996, whereas road prices and the costs of driving decreased over that period by 3.5 per cent. We should remember that when we hear about the motorist being clobbered. It is the rail passenger who has been clobbered under the Tories. We must keep that in perspective when we hear the Conservatives argue for changes to fuel duty.
While road users were given every encouragement and were told that they were wonderful and were given a road-building programme, rail users were given a second-class service, with clapped-out rolling stock, signals that did not work and no encouragement for rail investment. The rail network represented everything that the Conservative Government hated, especially the then Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher. It was fixed, regulated and in the public sector. She did not like it, and people who had to travel by rail did so only because there was no alternative. That is not a successful transport policy.
After 1986, with the calamity of bus deregulation, there was a catastrophic drop in the number of people using buses.

Mr. Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman move on from his biased history lesson and talk about the future? Does the Liberal party support the M4 bus lane? Would it like to see more bus lanes on other motorways?

Mr. Baker: I remind the Front-Bench spokesman that my party is the Liberal Democrat party and not the Liberal party. Yes, of course we support bus lanes. If they are proved to work, we will support them. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, the figures from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions suggest that, during that experiment, travelling times were reduced not just for buses and taxis, but for private motor vehicles. Each bus lane must be judged on its merits, but according to the figures that I assume are accurate—they have not been spun—that particular bus lane is working. If so, I do not understand why the Conservatives oppose it, other than for purely dogmatic reasons—but that would not surprise me in the least.
During the Conservative years, the poor and the disadvantaged suffered: the third of the population with no access to a car were expected to pay more than car users. While people were getting company car benefits to glide into central London and other city centres in their cars, other people had to pay the so-called market rate for second-rate buses and trains—and they had to stand all the way. Where was the comfort for them?
I could not believe that I heard the right hon. Member for Wokingham describe safety measures and road traffic calming devices as "impediments". They are not there to save lives, or to help pedestrians and cyclists. They get in the way—they get in the way of people, such as the right hon. Gentleman, who want to drive very fast down roads


so that people on foot must get out of the way. [Interruption.] The record tomorrow morning will show that the word "impediment" was used.

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman should listen more carefully. There are impediments such as the M4 bus lane, which is thoroughly unsafe as it is in the fast lane of the motorway and adjacent to the new fast lane. Of course we support safety improvements on other roads, where they are needed.

Mr. Baker: The record will show that the word "impediment" was used in response to a query on chicanes and traffic calming.
Conservative policy is this: car drivers should be entitled and encouraged to drive where they like—as uninhibited and as cheaply as possible—and the environment must pay. The public transport users must pay. The pedestrians and cyclists must pay. The poor and disadvantaged must pay. Those with health problems must pay. Nothing must stop the car driver, or the great car economy. What kind of a balanced transport policy is that?

Mr. Paterson: In a rural area such as mine, the majority of people drive to work in a car. According to Shropshire county council, the figure is 67 per cent. What does the Liberal party say to those car users who, thanks to Government policies supported by the hon. Gentleman's party, will now be paying, on average, £900 per year in extra tax?

Mr. Baker: First, I have no idea what the Liberal party would say, as it is a different party from mine. The Liberal Democrats recognise—I represent a rural area myself—that there are journeys in rural areas which must be made by private car where there is no realistic alternative. That is why we have a policy on vehicle excise duty under which someone driving a car of under 1600 cc for up to 24,000 miles a year will be better off, while someone with a gas guzzler will be worse off. The answer is that one chooses one's car carefully and one makes one's journeys carefully, and one will not suffer if one lives in a rural area.
We want to support the Government in what they are doing, as we believe that their heart is in the right place. The ideas coming from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are the right ideas, and I do not doubt the commitment of Ministers to improving transport policies and practice in this country. However, they sometimes make it difficult for themselves.
The White Paper is full of good ideas, but they are not being implemented as quickly or as thoroughly as we would like. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, we need, above all, time for legislation and time to introduce changes. There is only so much that can be done by cajoling, shouting and encouraging. We need legislation to bring about changes, and so far that has not been proposed.
There are certain measures in the Greater London Authority Bill—affecting London only, of course—but other measures have not been proposed to improve transport nationally. We are two years through this

Parliament—probably halfway through—and we are still awaiting legislation on this priority subject. I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister has been pushing for legislation, but the fact is that he has not got it.

Mr. Prescott: What does the hon. Gentleman want?

Mr. Baker: I will come to that. Either the Prime Minister and the Cabinet are getting cold feet about the radical nature of the White Paper, or the Deputy Prime Minister has been outmanoeuvred by his colleagues who have other Bills that they want to propose, and he has not won the battle in Cabinet.
We want a clear statement of how the Government are to achieve the road traffic reductions implied in previous legislation, and those agreed to in the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998. Early-day motion 323, signed by 319 Members of Parliament, calls for real reductions in road traffic—not reductions in road traffic growth, a phrase that is now making its appearance. Of those 319, 236 are Labour Members. So the majority of the parliamentary Labour party have signed up to real reductions in road traffic, along with all Liberal Democrat Members, with the exception of the party leader, who by convention is not supposed to sign early-day motions. Only 19 Tory Members have signed, which shows that they are committed not to road traffic reduction but to road traffic increase.
The Deputy Prime Minister said:
I agree to that commitment"—
to reduce overall road traffic and not only road traffic growth—
judge me on my performance in five years."—[Official Report, 20 October 1998; Vol. 317, c. 1071.]
That was a brave statement and I am pleased that he made it. His ministerial colleague, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), said:
our commitment to achieving not only a reduction in road traffic, but an absolute reduction, stands firm."—[Official Report, 18 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 1365.]
However, in a parliamentary answer to me in January she said that it is estimated that, with the transport White Paper policies in place—which they are not yet—traffic will grow by 37 per cent. by 2010 relative to 1990 vehicle kilometres. That is traffic growth of 25 per cent. over the next 10 years.
The Government need to act more quickly and with more radical policies to bring about the reductions. There is no doubt that they inherited a terrible situation, with problems of infrastructure, especially in the rail network; of pollution, which causes 24,000 premature deaths a year and has led to one in six children having asthma; and of congestion. Nobody expects them to turn the oil tanker round overnight, but my constituents are chafing at the bit. We know that we must have the stick of restrictions or extra charges but we want the carrot of improvements in public transport, which are not happening as quickly as they should.
The Government should be brave and legislate as soon as possible, in the next Session if not before, for a Strategic Rail Authority. They will by and large have our support for that. We want more real investment in rail, not the Railtrack version, dressing up maintenance as investment. We want rail lines to be reopened. I can give


the Deputy Prime Minister a list of those that could be reopened. We want freight-only lines to be used for passengers. We want new stations to be slotted in where they make commercial sense.
We want the sale of British Rail land to stop. I thought that we had won that one—I pushed the Minister interminably for it—but the answer to a parliamentary question last week on what land had been sold since the moratorium ran to two pages. The moratorium is about as effective as the one on genetically modified crops.
We need to consider more creative ways of using the tax system to encourage a better approach from drivers. The Budget made a start, and the graded tax disc was welcome, but it dealt only with cars under 1000 cc, which amount to less than 10 per cent. The Government have to take that welcome principle and extend it.

Mr. Paterson: Referring to rural car users, I cited the figure of £900 a year as the extra cost, but only £150 of that is the VED element; £600 is extra fuel duty. Would it be Liberal Democrat policy to continue to support increases in the escalator year on year?

Mr. Baker: I have set out the calculations on how our policy, including VED, would lead to a reduction in costs for rural drivers using a particular size of car to do a particular mileage. I think, therefore, that I have dealt with that point already.
Finally, I shall turn briefly to what we want to happen with the rail system. We want trains to be reliable and safe, especially for women at night. We want them to be clean and welcoming. Above all, we want them to be cheap.
In my constituency, the A27 Lewes-Polegate road is chock-a-block with traffic, while nearly empty trains run parallel to the road. The trains are nearly empty not because they are inconvenient or stop in the wrong place: the service is very good and the stations at Lewes, Brighton and Eastbourne are in the middle of town. The reason is that the trains are simply too expensive. Cutting fares would be a sensible use of Government money. The cost to the Treasury would be less than that incurred by the provision of infrastructure for new roads.
Such things cannot be done overnight. I welcome the start made in the White Paper, but the Government are still in first gear. We want them to go further, faster.

Miss Geraldine Smith: Much has been said tonight about congestion on our roads. I share the concerns that have been expressed in the debate, but it is difficult to swallow the criticisms levelled at the Government by Conservative Members. Public transport in this country was systematically run down over 18 years of Conservative Government. In that time, the whole of the former British Rail network was underfunded before the former Government privatised it at a knock-down price. Also, local authorities that tried to provide low-cost, efficient, local bus services were undermined by deregulation and the prohibition on subsidies to bus operators. The net result of Tory policies was the greater use of private cars and a reduction in the use of public transport.
Conservative Members have a cheek when they talk about revitalising town centres, given the way in which their Government decimated those centres by giving

planning consent, year after year, for out-of-town shopping centres. We watched the growth of those centres throughout the Tory years—so I shall take no lectures from Conservative Members on transport policies. Their record is one of dismal failure over many years.
However, I recognise that serious transport difficulties face this country. There is a long way to go before we achieve the integrated public transport that people require and deserve. I welcome the Government's recognition of the problem, and I welcome, too, their strategy to help to relieve congestion and bring about health and environmental improvements. We know the problems of pollution and the effects of congestion on our roads, and we know what that is doing to our children. We must address all those very serious issues. It is obvious to everyone—except, perhaps, to some Conservative Members—that the solution lies in getting people out of their cars and on to decent, affordable public transport. That must be done by persuasion.

Mr. Paterson: Does not the hon. Lady understand that the Government's policy is urban driven and cannot apply to rural areas? There are 98 villages in my constituency. With the best will in the world, there will never be a comprehensive public transport system. Private cars, vans and lorries will remain the prime means of transport for people of all ages and classes. All commerce depends on motorised vehicles.

Miss Smith: I appreciate that rural communities rely on private transport, but there are things that can be done. For example, the Post Office operates a post-bus service, which is very helpful in rural communities.

Mr. Paterson: It runs once a day.

Miss Smith: It delivers mail and carries people from village to village. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that rural communities rely on private transport as well as public transport. There is no disputing that.
We must persuade, not force, motorists out of their cars. There is a big difference in that. We must offer motorists safe, clean, reliable, affordable and convenient public transport. People in rural communities will leave their cars at home only if there are decent bus services. In some villages in my constituency, the last bus is at 6 pm, so without a private car no one can leave the village. We must address those problems before we ask people, unrealistically, to leave their cars at home.
Huge capital investment—either public or from private partnerships—is required in public transport. Improvements should also come from general taxation, rather than from hammering the motorist with a multitude of charges, levies and taxes. I feel strongly that it is unfair to penalise the poorest motorists through raising petrol levies. We must persuade people to leave their cars at home by providing public transport. If we do it the other way around, we will put the cart before the horse.
Many people choose not to drive. I did not drive for 10 years when I worked for the Post Office in the Morecambe and Lancaster area, but I had to take it up when I was forced to move to an office 30 miles away. Many of my constituents have no option but to drive to work on out-of-town industrial estates that are inaccessible by public transport. People who work shifts,


hospital workers, those who work in out-of-town shopping centres and many others have to drive to work. If we attack the motorists, we shall often be attacking low-paid workers who would have to leave their jobs if they had no car to get them to work.
Many parents drop off children at school in the morning and collect them when the school closes. Often, there are no adequate school buses. Can parents, worried about safety, really be expected to allow children to walk to school? We must be realistic. School buses and safe routes to school are needed—but until they arrive, people will drive.
Out-of-town shopping has damaged town centres and has not, on the whole, been good. However, it exists, and I, like many hon. Members, do my shopping out of town. Do we use public transport for that? Very few of us do, because it would be an absolute nightmare.

Mr. Jenkin: I do.

Miss Smith: The hon. Gentleman must be one of the few who go to out-of-town shopping centres on public transport. He will know what a nightmare it is to carry home bags of food, clothes and much more. Without a car, we have to depend on often unreliable public transport.
I represent many rural villages, so I know the problems that people face when buses do not run beyond tea-time. It is sad that my constituents in the village of Warton have no way of getting home at night from Lancaster or Morecambe. We must address such problems, and I am pleased that the Government are trying to do so through the rural transport initiative.
The car provides freedom for people with disabilities and older people. Even if the disability is slight—perhaps someone cannot walk far because of bad arthritis or a bad heart—people with disabilities need their cars to allow them to go to town. We must be careful not to penalise those people by driving fuel bills too high. Any Government foolish enough to take on the motorist would soon face serious difficulties. A large percentage of people drive. They depend on their cars. Next to their homes, most people aspire to owning a car. We must recognise that that is how people think and how they will continue to think for the foreseeable future. It is a fact of life and it will not go away because we want it to.
We must consider how we can change people's attitudes, again by persuasion. What would persuade me to stop using my car is knowing that public transport was safe, reliable and convenient. We must ensure that it is, but to do so everyone has to pay the price. The people who will benefit most from improvements in public transport are those who do not own cars and who already use it. Surely, if they are to benefit, they should also contribute.
Therefore, in the main, improvements in transport should be paid for from general taxation. It will take huge amounts of money and I recognise that the Government have been left with a transport system that is in an horrendous state. It has been neglected for 18 years. Car use has been allowed to escalate and we have not considered how we can persuade people to use other forms of transport. Our public transport system is crumbling. People complain about London, but if I

lived here I would at least find it easier to get around. There are all-night buses and there is the tube. In my constituency, buses often do not run at night and what service there is tends to be infrequent.
Until we get all those things right, the Government must realise that people cannot be forced out of their cars. They simply will not have it. They will hit back against any Government who try to implement that policy—and the Government will lose out. We should not force people out of their cars. We should listen to what people tell us, which is that they enjoy using their cars and will continue to do so for the near future. Only through sensible transport policies will we reduce car use.

Mr. Paterson: In that case, will the hon. Lady impress upon her Front-Bench colleagues that the fuel escalator should cease next year?

Miss Smith: The fuel escalator was introduced by the hon. Gentleman's party. It did not do the Conservatives much good, as they lost the last general election. It was not a popular policy, but then not many of the policies that the Conservative Government were proclaiming at that stage were popular with the British people.
My purpose tonight is to ask the Government to reflect carefully and to think about the vast majority of people in this country who drive cars and who need to be persuaded to use public transport. Transport needs to be in place for them to be able to use it.

Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Lady do the House the courtesy of answering my question? Will she propose that the Government do not extend the fuel escalator next year?

Miss Smith: I was winding up. I told you that the fuel escalator was unpopular for your—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady does not tell me anything.

Miss Smith: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was telling the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) that I did not think that the fuel escalator was a popular policy for the Conservative Government. If that policy is continued and the price of petrol increases dramatically, it will not be a popular policy for this Government, either. That is why I ask them to think carefully and why I am speaking tonight.

Mr. David Tredinnick: I am grateful for being called to speak, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I noted that my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) was winding up the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) as she tried to wind up her speech.
I am grateful to have a few minutes and I will confine my remarks to my Leicestershire constituency, to consider the problems of the development in Hinckley and the need to upgrade the A5 between the M1–M69 roundabout and the Longshoot junction at Nuneaton.
Earlier, the Deputy Prime Minister said that it was a mistake to link planning and transport. I want to demonstrate that if we do not consider transport in relation


to the A5, Watling street and Hinckley, development in Hinckley will not take place in line with his inspector's recommendations on the local structure plan. As soon as those proposed developments are approved by the borough council, the Highways Agency will reject them on the ground that the trunk road does not have the capacity. I commend the Highways Agency and my local council—Hinckley and Bosworth borough council—for getting together to try to solve that problem sensibly.
In my rural constituency of 100 square miles, there has been tremendous concern among car owners about tax increases. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire also referred to that matter. There has been particular concern in the more rural parts of my constituency, but firms such as Crowfoots, in the main town of Hinckley, are extremely worried about the hike in diesel costs. That has caused great hardship.
There would be anxiety about any proposed bus lanes in the midlands. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) referred to the bus lane experiment on the M4. We should be most concerned about any proposed bus lanes on the M1 and the M69.
The Secretary of State has failed to set up the much-vaunted Strategic Rail Authority; we should be interested to know when that will be done. It was one of his flagship proposals. The chaos on the Circle line reflects badly on the Labour Administration, too.
In Hinckley, there will be no development on the main local sites—such as grass plots, Nutts lane, Coventry road housing estate or the area off Wolvey road, unless the Government are able to help us. There can be no development in line with the Government's proposed increase in house building in Hinckley and the rest of Leicestershire unless improvements are made to the A5—an important trunk road. It is nonsense that we are unable to expand Hinckley, which is a most important town in the midlands.
The right hon. Gentleman can help us. The proposals are for a private-public partnership and will be introduced over five or six years. A few years ago, a small development took place on a section of the road from the Coventry road roundabout to Longshoot, which eased traffic enormously. We now need to extend that development. That could be done if the DETR, through the Highways Agency, looks kindly on the proposals. They have been well thought out and will cost about £9 million. If a railway bridge in the area is raised or lowered, the cost may increase by about 10 per cent to 20 per cent. If the Deputy Prime Minister supports the scheme, there will be huge benefits for the nation, because when the M6 is clogged up, the A5—the main arterial road running from London to the north-west—comes into play. I appeal to him to take note of that local initiative.
During the past fortnight, there have been two fatal accidents on that part of the road and there have been four fatal accidents in almost as many months. We need black-spot and warning signs on that section, and we need markings on the roundabouts. We need immediate action. I appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister to consider the matter.

Jacqui Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is arguing for traffic calming measures, such as those opposed by Members on the Conservative Front Bench during the opening comments of the debate?

Mr. Tredinnick: The hon. Lady must have misunderstood me; I thought that I was arguing for improvements on the road itself—a dual carriageway, three lanes and some roundabouts. That was the principal thrust of my argument.

Mr. Paterson: rose—

Mr. Tredinnick: Does my hon. Friend want to intervene?

Mr. Paterson: I merely wanted to say that the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) shamefully misinterprets my hon. Friend's arguments.

Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
The Deputy Prime Minister has a unique opportunity to use his influence in respect of a major strategic road in the middle of England and to enhance his own reputation. I hope that he will not miss that opportunity.

Ms Rosie Winterton: I am glad to have an opportunity to speak in the debate, because transport has an enormous effect on the quality of life of all of us and of our constituents.
In a voluntary capacity, I am a member of the RAC's public policy committee, so I know how important it is to motorists that we do something to reduce congestion on our roads. The RAC Foundation for Motoring recently surveyed RAC members, and the results show that 78 per cent. of motorists are concerned about traffic congestion. That motorists are concerned about the costs of motoring is to be expected, but they also know that congestion is costly to business and in health terms. Motorists know that, not only because they are car drivers and car users, but because they are also pedestrians, cyclists and rail users.
The survey shows that everyone knows that maintaining the status quo is not an option; people want change. The Government are delivering change, by providing an extra £1.8 billion for public transport, developing local transport plans with local authorities, providing an extra £170 million for rural buses, and increasing road maintenance. Those measures are making a real difference in improving public transport.
Although congestion charging has not yet started, local authorities will be able to establish local transport plans that will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) said, help to persuade people to leave their car at home. If bus lanes, park-and-ride facilities, bypasses and ring roads are available, funded through local transport plans, the motorists will be offered a choice and, as the RAC says, that is the way to ensure that people believe that they can leave the car at home.

Mr. Fraser: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Winterton: No—I am sorry, but I have very little time.
The RAC survey showed that the majority of motorists said that, if the money derived from congestion charging went back—at local level—into improving transport, providing better roads and better public transport,


they would support charging. That is why the link with hypothecation is so important to the Government's aims. The survey also showed that 49 per cent. of motorists said that, if charging were introduced, they would try to car share; and, of those, 94 per cent. said that they thought that that could be achieved.
That survey was only of motorists—it did not take into account the views of those who do not have cars. In my constituency, 40 per cent. of people do not have a car—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are private conversations going on in the Chamber. It is bad manners to talk though the hon. Lady's contribution to the debate.

Ms Winterton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The 40 per cent. of people in my constituency who do not own a car would not have been consulted in the survey, which shows that motorists support the action that the Government are taking.
The RAC Foundation for Motoring recently published a report, "Civilising Cities", which shows that people in local communities believe that improved transport links can help to increase employment, enhance access to leisure facilities and improve health through better air quality. The RAC believes that, if the DETR could set up a unit that would take those indicators into account—much in the way suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—that would help in assessing the effectiveness of local transport strategies. There is no doubt that it will take time to improve public transport—we must clean up the mess left by the Conservatives—but I am convinced that the actions of this Government will enable us to do that.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: This Government were elected promising a great deal. Labour promised that there would be no new taxes and immediate benefits for the travelling public. We can laugh a hollow laugh at that. Labour said that merging the Departments of Transport and the Environment would create what it called "joined-up Government". Two years on, we have soaring anti-car taxation—the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) is right: the motorist is feeling hammered—transport spending has been cut and the Government pontificate endlessly against the car and against the ordinary folk who use it. We have had precious few policies and no legislation—which may be rather a good thing. We have had numerous consultation documents and policy launches, but the problems are worse than ever. Labour promised an integrated transport policy, but it is delivering a stand-still Britain.
After more than two years in office, all that the Government have to show for their transport and planning policies are ever-lengthening queues: queues of traffic on our motorways, queues of commuters waiting for their trains, queues of vehicles in town and city centres, queues of decisions waiting to be made and ever-growing queues of unanswered questions that are fundamental to the direction of future policy.
It is the Minister for Transport's first time at the Dispatch Box with me, so I shall be gentle with her. However, I should be grateful if she will answer in her

winding-up speech some of the questions that the Government's policies leave unanswered. Let us consider the problems on the tube. The Circle line has been closed for two weeks and will remain closed for another seven weeks. Later this week, the city branch of the Northern line will also be closed for repairs. There is uncertainty about when the Jubilee line extension will be completed.
Will the Minister make a brief statement about the future of the public-private partnership on the tube? Will the Minister admit that the PPP is now at least one year behind the timetable envisaged in March 1998, that the contracts should have been let last September—we are not yet at the pre-qualification stage—and that the completion date of April 2000 is now ludicrously impossible? Will she tell the House who supports this public-private partnership? Not a single mayoral candidate is on record as backing it. Does the hon. Lady remember Labour's criticism of rail privatisation: that it was fragmenting the network? This public-private partnership will fragment the tube into four different companies, fragment the sub-surface tube from the deep tube and will split the management of the tube from that of London Buses for the first time in more than a generation. How is that integration?
Who will pay for the PPP? A written answer makes it clear that the Government subsidy for the tube will run out in April next year. Is it now apparent that the congestion charges and parking taxes will be hijacked by the Government to pay for their failed policies on the tube. What will happen when the money runs out? It is quite obvious that London Underground will run out of funds before the PPP is in place. Does the Minister agree that Londoners will rue the day when Labour cancelled the Conservative investment plans for the tube?
The public-private partnership is an extraordinary beast. It is one thing to privatise the management and the operations of the tube and hold the assets in the public sector but quite another to privatise the assets but keep the management answerable to the whims and fancies of politicians and civil servants. There is no precedent for the PPP. I recall the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar) describing the privatisation of British Airways as the "pantomime horse of capitalism". This public-private partnership will be the pushmi-pullyu of the public sector.
The consensus option is the model proposed by Professor Glaister. Why do not the Government consider that? The supreme irony is that privatised Railtrack will be bailing out the Deputy Prime Minister's discredited policies.
That brings us to railway investment. I have a few questions about that. Does the Minister agree with Sir Alastair Morton, who says that he wants to make rail privatisation work, and that it was always going to take 10 years to do so? When will the Strategic Rail Authority Bill be published? Is it true that the Deputy Prime Minister was forced to remove that announcement from his speech this afternoon? What powers are needed by the SRA that the British Railways Board, the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and the Rail Regulator do not already have? Is a new statute really necessary?
When will the Government stop fighting the previous election campaign against the rail companies that are trying to deliver the network and service improvements that the Government say they want? If the rail franchises


are too short, why have the Government taken no action on that for over two years? How will Railtrack deliver its £27 billion investment plans if Ministers continue to threaten its profitability and undermine its share price? That investment includes the investment in the west coast main line, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) pointed out. When will the Government make the decisions that will enable Railtrack to deliver the rest of its investment plans?
What is the objective of the rail regulatory review, and when will that be completed? With freight trebling over 10 years, what will the Government do to improve on their target, which is presumably part of their policy? As sure as eggs are eggs, increasing fuel duties for road freight is not the answer.
That brings me to the crisis in the road haulage sector. After her Government's massive hikes in fuel tax and vehicle excise duty, does the Minister recognise that the UK road haulage industry faces an unprecedented crisis? Is she aware that one in 10 long-haul trucks in the UK are now foreign-registered? The Conservatives' policy is to end the fuel escalator. What is the Government's policy? Will they increase fuel duties in the next Budget? The Minister's predecessor was considering our plans for the Britdisc. What progress has she made on that? She has finally agreed a new meeting, on 19 July, for the road haulage forum, but why has it taken so long since the first meeting—which was in early April—to do so? Are such delays the penalty for having a new Minister for Transport every year?
Does the right hon. Lady think that forcing UK hauliers out of business will help to solve congestion on our roads? Is taxation—on fuel, congestion and parking—the Government's only policy to solve congestion? In response to the remarks of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, I ask whether it is fair to try to price poorer motorists off the road. That is the effect of the Government's policy.
On planning and congestion, has the Minister read the report by her noble Friend Lord Rogers? He says that building 40 per cent. of the 4 million new homes required over the next 25 years on green-field sites would
lead to a further erosion of the countryside, increase traffic congestion and pollution, damage biodiversity and increase social deprivation".
What is the Government's response to that?
Congestion growth is found not in city centres or suburban areas but on inter-urban roads, where traffic is set to grow by 70 per cent. over the next 20 years. The hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) is right to say that congestion is costly, but how will cancelling virtually the entire roads programme reduce congestion? Ninety-one per cent. of journeys are made by car, and 94 per cent. of land freight is moved by road. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), who spoke in the debate, understands that.
There is a fundamental contradiction in the Government's policy: there is no evidence that traffic growth forecasts have changed, but they are making absolutely no provision for any traffic growth.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is my hon. Friend aware of the astonishing decision taken by the Deputy Prime Minister to grant additional planning permission for

even more new houses in West Sussex without any provision for improvements in infrastructure? How does that combine with care for the environment?

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is right; the decision does nothing about caring for the environment. Nor will it reduce traffic and congestion.
It is perfectly all right for the Minister for Transport, who represents a Scottish constituency, to sit in her place and pontificate about policy—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Mr. Jenkin: In the 18 years of Conservative Government, spending per head on roads was 24.7 per cent. higher in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. In the Government's own plans, spending remains 12.3 per cent. higher in Scotland. How can the right hon. Lady come to this House, where she has no responsibility for roads in her constituency, to tell us in England that we should not complain about her cuts in our English roads programme? Why are a Government who pledged to revolutionise transport raising more taxation than ever from it but cutting spending?

Mr. Tony McNulty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: I will not give way.
The Deputy Prime Minister was hit very badly in the public spending review. Last year, he spent £4.7 billion on transport, this year, it is £4.6 billion, and next year, £4.5 billion. Taxation raised from road users last year totalled £32 billion. We have an affluent society, and the car economy reflects that affluence, yet this Government expect roads to be funded on a shoestring.
We have a standstill on the roads, a standstill at the UK Passport Agency, as we heard earlier and, by a quirk of irony, we also have a standstill at the airports. The Government are meant to be taking decisions on the public-private partnership for National Air Traffic Services. It was announced last summer in a document on asset disposals for the financial year 1999–2000.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the hon. Gentleman support the sale of National Air Traffic Services?

Mr. Jenkin: It was our policy at the general election to privatise National Air Traffic Services. It is also the policy of her Government, as it says in the document. They are meant to be privatising the services during this financial year, but where is the legislation? Where is the decision? Is the Deputy Prime Minister being jumped on, just as he has been jumped on concerning other decisions?
NATS needs £100 million of new capital every year, and the Government are taking it away. Talk about disinvestment! More delay on the decision means more delays for air travellers, holidaymakers and business men flying abroad. If the Minister for Transport is in charge of this privatisation, will she be giving the necessary reassurances on safety?
Will the right hon. Lady give the necessary assurances on pensions? After serving as Robert Maxwell's right-hand man in Scotland as director of public and


corporate affairs of the Mirror Group (Scotland), at Robert Maxwell's beck and call, does she think that she is qualified to give assurances on pensions, of all things? Her defence is that she did not know what was going on at the time. It is quite obvious that she does not understand what is going on now in her Department.
After two years in power, Labour is bringing Britain's roads to a standstill. Rail networks are overcrowded and Britain has the highest fuel taxes in Europe, but our transport investment ranks among the lowest. Labour sees motorists, who are ordinary people, as nothing but a tax-raising opportunity.
After two years in power, no one knows what Labour's transport policies are—except for their disastrous M4 bus lane and new taxes on traffic queues and on people who park at work. The Deputy Prime Minister's Department has no money, no legislation, no principles and no solutions to the transport crisis.
We promise to deliver a fairer deal for Britain's travelling public, to provide real transport options, to encourage greater innovation and private investment. At the same time, people want to be able to use their cars responsibly and to respect and protect the environment.
Labour is taking the country on a road to nowhere because it is ignoring the real needs of the travelling public. We believe in increasing public choices, not reducing them. The Conservatives will get Britain moving again.

The Minister for Transport (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I thank the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) for his welcome to the Dispatch Box. I was greatly amused when he said that he would be gentle. I kept waiting for him to start his speech. In fact, I am frequently overawed by the hon. Gentleman's ability to keep a straight face when he comes out with such twaddle as we heard tonight.
The motion, the opening speech of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and the speech of the hon. Member for North Essex were glaring examples, even by Tory standards, of political hypocrisy camouflaged as righteous indignation.
On an Opposition Day motion, on a subject that the Opposition presumably consider important, only two Opposition Back Benchers sought to speak in the debate. That is the measure of Opposition interest in the debate. The far-sighted approach to transport choices that they have demonstrated tonight reflects the phrase of one of their former Prime Ministers—

Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister to claim that only two Conservatives put in to speak, when it was quite plain at the end of the debate that at least two Conservatives were rising and trying to get in?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. The Chair is not responsible for what the right hon. Lady or any other hon. Member says.

Mrs. Liddell: I am amused by the intervention of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), as I have been in the Chamber all evening and he has only recently come in.

Mr. James Gray: rose—

Mr. Paterson: rose—

Mrs. Liddell: Ah—Opposition Members all want in now. They all want their mark in the register, now that they have come in. [Interruption.] I give way—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady is not giving way.

Mrs. Liddell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for pointing out that I am not giving way.

Mr. Paterson: rose—

Mrs. Liddell: I do not know which part of no the hon. Gentleman does not understand.
To judge from some of the contributions tonight, it is clear that the Opposition are confused and have no memory. I found it interesting that the hon. Member for North Essex made no reference to the much-vaunted M4 bus lane—

Mr. Jenkin: I did.

Mrs. Liddell: I must have missed that comment. Presumably it was different from the comment that the hon. Gentleman made on 11 March, when he addressed the Institute of Directors and said that there was much in the Government's White Paper with which the Conservatives agreed, not least the sensible approach to bus lanes. Presumably that is what he had in mind when he constructed the Opposition motion this evening.

Mr. Jenkin: Why did the Government issue no public consultation about that bus lane? Why was it not modelled through the Transport Research Laboratory? Why was there no marketing push to improve the use of public transport on the bus lane before it was launched? Why was it just sprung on the public as the silly stunt that it is?

Mrs. Liddell: The only silly stunt that we have seen tonight is the Opposition motion.
When the right hon. Member for Wokingham opened the debate, I wonder whether he was conscious of the fact that the shadow Transport Minister beside him not only did not support him when he ran for the leadership of the Conservative party, but has made it clear in the past that he supported Mr. Michael Portillo. I have no doubt that tonight's debate was much more about posturing within the Conservative party than about making a meaningful contribution to public transport policy. [Interruption.]
When Labour came to power, we inherited—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It does not do for the Chair to keep standing and intervening. I plead with the House again to come to order. The House must keep good order.

Mrs. Liddell: I reiterate: when the Labour Government came to power, we inherited a transport system that had been undermined by the ideological pursuit of the free market and starved of vital investment.
When we were elected we discovered a £1.2 billion shortfall in investment in London Underground. This morning, the hon. Member for North Essex was caught out on the "Today" programme whenever he talked about such investment because Mr. James Naughtie pointed out that he had made it clear three months before the general election that the Conservative Government regarded it as adequate. Conservative Members have repeatedly mentioned the problems of the Circle and Northern lines. Had there been the investment in London Underground that there should have been, the difficulties that are being experienced on the Circle line would not have arisen.
Labour Members are committed to taking concrete and practical approaches to public transport and to the use of the car. We believe in an integrated transport policy. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, Conservative Members ask what an integrated transport policy is. I am not surprised that they ask that, because their policies will fragment and destroy the public transport network.
We started by merging the Departments of the Environment and of Transport to make sure that we take an integrated approach to policy. We are committed to physical integration that ensures that all modes of transport work smoothly together. We also believe that there should be vertical links when decisions are taken at national level. Those links should filter down to proper and adequate local decision making. We also believe in the integration of public and private transport because we want to give people the choice of using either their cars or adequate public transport.
The hon. Member for North Essex is an ex-car salesman. Like him, I enjoy using a car. We do not want people to stop using their cars; we want them to be more sensible about the use of their cars. Conservative Members have extremely short memories. The Green Paper published by the previous Government in 1996 made it plain that alternatives to the car had to be found and that difficult decisions would have to be taken.
We have heard much this evening about the road policy. The 1996 Green Paper included the statement that the roads network was almost complete. One aspect of roads policy was distinctly ignored by the previous Government—there was no attempt to achieve proper road maintenance, and a number of speakers have made plain the local difficulties that they are experiencing as a consequence of the previous Government's crazy policies and the failure to tackle—

Mr. Gray: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Liddell: No, I want to make progress. If I have time, I shall give way.
A number of points have been made by hon. Members about the difficulties—[Interruption.] Conservative Members ask about the points that have been put to me. I am about to respond to them, not least those made by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day). [Interruption.] Those on the Conservative Front Bench say, "How exciting." They have not all been in the Chamber this evening. If they had been, they would have heard some constructive points from my hon. Friends, who are committed to a proper transport policy, not the haphazard opportunism of Conservative Members.
The difficulties that we are experiencing with our transport network were not two years in the making; they were 18 years in the making. The hon. Member for

Cheadle talked about some of the difficulties that are being experienced in Manchester and on the west coast main line. I argued for improvements to be made when I was an Opposition Back Bencher, but the previous Government made no attempt to get them under way. He also asked about airport policy.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Liddell: No. I am replying to points made by the hon. Member for Cheadle, who has had the courtesy to remain in the Chamber for the duration of the debate.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about airport policy, and the difficulties that are experienced when aircraft stray from their given paths. That is an interesting point, which the Government have already considered. We will consult on matters concerning air traffic, not least those relating to the difficulties of noise mitigation. Many problems of noise are caused by aircraft that go off their permitted paths. I hope that that commitment is of some assistance to the hon. Gentleman, and to his constituents.
Predictably, we heard an interesting speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who, on the basis of considerable knowledge, spoke of the role of the Strategic Rail Authority. A number of speakers referred to the authority, and to our determination to end the fragmentation created by haphazard rail privatisation and get the railways working again in the interests of the travelling public and our economy.
My hon. Friend made a valid point about the need for us to give the authority statutory backing. If Opposition Members want a railways Bill and a Strategic Rail Authority, perhaps they should consider applying the working time directive to the House of Lords. Were it not for the delaying tactics in the House of Lords, we should be able to proceed much more quickly with the establishment of a Strategic Rail Authority, and with a railways Bill—although I can say that we hope soon to be able to make an announcement about the Strategic Rail Authority.

Mr. Gray: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Liddell: No. I will not. I want to take up more of the points that have been made.
In a considered speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) spoke of the difficulties caused to her community by the rundown in public transport over 18 years of Conservative Government. She also referred to the increase in out-of-town shopping, and the pressures that it imposed on those without cars. I remind my hon. Friend that, in the lifetime of the last Government, the number of out-of-town shopping complexes increased from 100 to more than 1,000. That caused considerable difficulties.
My hon. Friend made some considered points about the fuel escalator. Her comments were much more sensible than those of the hon. Member for North Essex. I remind her that we have international obligations in relation to the Kyoto summit, which is why we supported the last


Government when they introduced the fuel escalator. Indeed, it was the hon. Member for North Essex who, when the escalator was introduced, waxed eloquent in his praise of the Chancellor for introducing it.
My hon. Friend also made an important point about schools. I hope to be able to make some announcements tomorrow about Government policy to assist those who wish to ensure that their children can walk to school. In the lifetime of the last Government, there was a considerable increase in the number of children being driven to school by car. That is not good for children's health, and it does not help the problem of road traffic congestion, much of which occurs at about 8.50 am. Because Labour Members believe in joined-up government—that phrase that we hear so much—I, along with my colleagues in the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment, have promoted a number of initiatives relating to school transport.
I note from tonight's debate that Opposition Members—who are now trying to deny it—oppose the very traffic-calming measures that have ensured a 20 per cent. reduction in the number of accidents. It is clear to Labour Members that for 20 years we had to stand in impotent opposition, while a Government who did not care and would not act presided over economic disruption and social deprivation. Labour Members believe in public transport, and we will ensure—

Mr. James Arbuthnot: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 350.

Division No. 221]
[10 p


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Clarke, Rt Hon kenneth


Amess, David
(Rushcliffe)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael



Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Collins, Tim


Beggs, Roy
Colvin, Michael


Bercow, John
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cran, James


Blunt, Crispin
Curry, Rt Hon David


Body, Sir Richard
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Boswell, Tim
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Duncan, Alan


Brady, Graham
Duncan Smith, lain


Brazier, Julian
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, Nigel


Browning, Mrs Angela
Faber, David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fabricant, Michael


Bums, Simon
Fallon, Michael


Butterfill, John
Flight, Howard


Cash, William
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Bamet)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Chope, Christopher
Fraser, Christopher


Clappison, James
Gale, Roger


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Garnier, Edward


Gibb, Nick
Gill, Christopher





Gillan, Mrs Cheryl



Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Prior, David


Gray, James
Randall, John


Green, Damian
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Greenway, John
Robathan, Andrew


Grieve, Dominic
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
St Aubyn, Nick


Hammond, Philip
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hawkins, Nick
Shepherd, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Soames, Nicholas


Hese!tine, Rt Hon Michael
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Spicer, Sir Michael


Horam, John
Spring, Richard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Steen, Anthony


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Streeter, Gary


Jackson Robert (Wantage)
Syms, Robert


Jenkin, Bemard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Key, Robert
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Townend, John


Lansley, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Leigh, Edward
Trend, Michael


Letwin, Oliver
Tyrie, Andrew


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Viggers, Peter


Lidington, David
Walter, Robert


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Wardle, Charles


Liwyd, Elfyn
Waterson, Nigel


Loughton, Tim
Wells, Bowen


Luff, Peter
Whitney, Sir Raymond


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Whittingdale, John


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wilkinson, John


Madel, Sir David
Willetts, David


Maples, John
Wilshire, David


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Woodward, Shaun


Moss, Malcolm
Yeo, Tm


Nicholls, Patrick
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Norman, Archie



Ottaway, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Page, Richard
Mrs. Jacqui Lait and


Paterson, Owen
Mr. Stephen Day.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Blizzard, Bob


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Boateng, Paul


Ainger, Nick
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Alexander, Douglas
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Allan, Richard
Bradshaw, Ben


Allen, Graham
Brake, Tom


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Breed, Colin


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Browne, Desmond


Atkins, Charlotte
Buck, Ms Karen


Baker, Norman
Burden, Richard


Banks, Tony
Burgon, Colin


Barnes, Harry
Burnett, John


Bayley, Hugh
Butler, Mrs Christine


Beard, Nigel
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cabom, Rt Hon Richard


Begg, Miss Anne
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bndge)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Campbell—Savours, Dale


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cann, Jamie


Bennett, Andrew F
Caplin, Ivor


Benton, Joe
Caton, Martin


Berry, Roger
Chaytor, David


Best, Harold
Chidgey, David


Betts, Clive
Clapham, Michael


Blackman, Liz







Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Grogan, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gunnell, John


Clarke. Charles (Norwich S)
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clelland, David
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clwyd, Ann
Hancock, Mike


Coaker, Vernon
Hanson, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Cohen, Harry
Harris, Dr Evan


Coleman, lain
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Colman, Tony
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Connarty, Michael
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Corbett, Robin
Hepburn, Stephen


Corbyn, Jeremy
HeppeII, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Hesford, Stephen


Cousins, Jim
Hill, Keith


Cox, Tom
Hinchliffe. David


Cranston, Ross
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Crausby, David
Hoey, Kate


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hood, Jimmy


Cryer, John (Homchurch)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cummings, John
Hope, Phil


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Howells, Dr Kim


Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hoyle, Lindsay


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davidson, Ian
Hurst, Alan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hutton, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Denham, John
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dobbin, Jim
Jamieson, David


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Drown, Ms Julia
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd S)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Edwards, Huw
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Efford, Clive
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Ennis, Jeff
Keetch, Paul


Etherington, Bill
Kemp, Fraser


Fearn, Ronnie
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Fisher, Mark
Khabra, Piara S


Fitzsimons, Loma
Kidney, David


Flint, Caroline
Kiffoyle, Peter


Flynn, Paul
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Follett, Barbara
Kirkwood, Archy


Forsythe, Clifford
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Laxton, Bob


Foulkes, George
Lepper, David


Fyfe, Maria
Levitt, Tom


Galloway, George
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gapes, Mike
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Linton, Martin


Gerrard, Neil
Livingstone, Ken


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Love, Andrew


Godman, Dr Norman A
McAvoy, Thomas


Godsiff, Roger
McCabe, Steve


Goggins, Paul
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Golding, Mrs Llin
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McDonagh, Siobhain


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Macdonald, Calum


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McDonnell, John





McIsaac, Shona
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Ryan, Ms Joan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Salter, Martin


McNamara, Kevin
Sanders, Adrian


McNulty, Tony
Savidge, Malcolm


MacShane, Denis
Sawford, Phil


Mactaggart, Fiona
Sedgemore, Brian


McWalter, Tony
Shaw, Jonathan


McWilliam, John
Sheerman, Barry


Mallaber, Judy 
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mendelson, Rt Hon Peter
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Singh, Marsha


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Maxton, John
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Merron, Gillian
Snape, Peter


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Speller, John


Miller, Andrew 
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mitchell, Austin
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Moffatt, Laura 
Steinberg, Gerry


Moonie Dr Lewis,
Stevenson, George


Moore, Michael
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stinchcombe, Paul


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morley, Elliot
Stott, Roger


Mudie, George
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Mullin, Chris
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stringer, Graham


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Norris, Dan
Stunell, Andrew


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Hara, Eddie
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Öpik, Lembit
Temple—Morris, Peter


Organ, Mrs Diana
Timms, Stephen


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Tipping, Paddy


Palmer, Dr Nick
Todd, Mark


Pearson, Ian
Tonge, Dr Jenny


 Pickthall, Colin
Tricke tt, Jon


Pike, Peter L
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Plaskitt, James
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Pond, Chris
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pope, Greg
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Tyler, Paul


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Vaz, Keith


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Vis, Dr Rudi


Prosser, Gwyn
Walley, Ms Joan


Purchase, Ken
Ward, Ms Claire


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Wareing, Robert N


Radice, Giles
Watts, David


Rammell, Bill
Webb, Steve


Rapson, Syd
White, Brian


Raynsford, Nick
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wicks, Malcolm


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Robertson,, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S) 
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Rooker, Jeff
Willis, Phil


Rooney, Terry
Wills, Michael


Rowlands, Ted
Winnick, David


Roy, Frank
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Ruane, Chris
Wise, Audrey


Ruddock, Joan
Wood, Mike


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Woolas, Phil



Worthington, Tony



Wray, James






Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Tellers for the noes:


Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Mrs. Anne McGuire and 


Wyatt, Derek
Mrs. Mike Hall.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 147.

Division No. 222]
[10.13 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corbyn, Jeremy


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Corston, Ms Jean


Ainger, Nick
Cousins, Jim


Alexander, Douglas
Cox, Tom


Allen, Graham
Cranston, Ross


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Crausby, David


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cryer, John (Homchurch)


Atkins, Charlotte
Cummings, John


Banks, Tony
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bames, Harry
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Bayley, Hugh
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Beard, Nigel
Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dalyell, Tam


Begg, Miss Anne
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Davidson, Ian


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bennett, Andrew F
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Benton, Joe
Dawson, Hilton


Berry, Roger
Dean, Mrs Janet


Best, Harold
Denham, John


Betts, Clive
Dobbin, Jim


Blackman, Liz
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Blizzard, Bob
Donohoe, Brian H


Boateng, Paul
Doran, Frank


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Drown, Ms Julia


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bradshaw, Ben
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Edwards, Huw


Browne, Desmond
Efford, Clive


Buck, Ms Karen
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Burden, Richard
Ennis, Jeff


Burgon, Colin
Etherington, Bill


Butler, Mrs Christine
Fisher, Mark


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Cabom, Rt Hon Richard
Flint, Caroline


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bndge)
Follett, Barbara


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Caplin, Ivor
Foulkes, George


Caton, Martin
Fyfe, Maria


Chaytor, David
Galloway, George


Clapham, Michael
Gapes, Mike


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gerrard, Neil


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clelland, David
Godsiff, Roger


Clwyd, Ann
Goggins, Paul


Coaker, Vernon
Golding, Mrs Llin


Coffey, Ms Ann
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Cohen, Harry
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Coleman, lain
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Colman, Tony
Grogan, John


Connarty, Michael
Gunnell, John


Corbett, Robin
Hain, Peter





Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hanson, David
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Martlew, Eric


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Maxton, John


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hepburn, Stephen
Meale, Alan


Heppell, John
Merron, Gillian


Hesford, Stephen
Milbum, Rt Hon Alan


Hill, Keith
Miller, Andrew


Hinchliffe, David
Moffatt, Laura


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hood, Jimmy
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hoon, Geoffrey
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hope, Phil
Mudie, George


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mullin, Chris


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Howells, Dr Kim
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hoyle, Lindsay
Norris, Dan


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Humble, Mrs Joan
O'Hara, Eddie


Hurst, Alan
O'Neill, Marlin


Hutton, John
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Iddon, Dr Brian
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pearson, Ian


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pickthall, Colin


Jamieson, David
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd 5)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Purchase, Ken


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kemp, Fraser
Radice, Giles


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rammell, Bill


Khabra, Piara S
Rapson, Syd


Kidney, David
Raynsford, Nick


Kilfoyle, Peter
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rooker, Jeff


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rooney, Terry


Laxton, Bob
Rowlands, Ted


Lepper, David
Roy, Frank


Levitt, Tom
Ruane, Chris


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ruddock, Joan


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Ryan, Ms Joan


Linton, Martin
Salter, Martin


Livingstone, Ken
Savidge, Malcolm


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Sawford, Phil


Love, Andrew
Sedgemore, Brian


McAvoy, Thomas
Shaw, Jonathan


McCabe, Steve
Sheerman, Barry


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Singh, Marsha


Macdonald, Calum
Skinner, Dennis


McDonnell, John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McNulty, Tony
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


MacShane, Denis
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mactaggart, Fiona
Spellar, John


McWatter, Tony
Squire, Ms Rachel


McWilliam, John
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mallaber, Judy
Steinberg, Gerry


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Stevenson, George


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool 5)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)



Stinchcombe, Paul






Stoate, Dr Howard
Wareing, Robert N


Stott, Roger
Watts, David


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
White, Brian


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stringer, Graham
Wicks, Malcolm


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wills, Michael


Temple—Morris, Peter
Winnick, David


Timms, Stephen
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Tipping, Paddy
Wise, Audrey


Todd, Mark
Wood, Mike


Trickett, Jon
Woolas, Phil


Tumer, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Worthington, Tony


Tumer, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Wray, James


Tumer, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Twigg, Derek (Hatton)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wyatt, Derek


Vaz, Keith



Vis, Dr Rudi
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walley, Ms Joan
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Ward, Ms Claire
Mr. Mike Hall.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gill, Christopher


Allan, Richard
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Amess, David
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Gray, James


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Green, Damian


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Greenway, John


Baker, Norman
Grieve, Dominic


Beggs, Roy
Hague, Rt Hon William


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Bercow, John
Hammond, Philip


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hancock, Mike


Blunt, Crispin
Harris, Dr Evan


Boswell, Tim
Harvey, Nick


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Hawkins, Nick


Brake, Tom
Heald, Oliver


Brazier, Julian
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Breed, Colin
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Heseffine, Rt Hon Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Horam, John


Burnett, John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Butterfill, John
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Cash, William
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Chope, Christopher
Jenkin, Bemard


Clappison, James
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Keetch, Paul


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Key, Robert


Collins, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Colvin, Michael
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Gran, James
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Lansley, Andrew


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Leigh, Edward


Day, Stephen
Letwin, Oliver


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Duncan, Alan
Lidington, David


Duncan Smith, lain
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Loughton, Tim


Faber, David
Luff, Peter


Fabricant, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fallon, Michael
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fearn, Ronnie
McLoughlin, Patrick


Flight, Howard
Madel, Sir David


Fraser, Christopher
Maples, John


Gale, Roger
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Garnier, Edward
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Moore, Michael


Gibb, Nick
Moss, Malcolm



Norman, Archie



Öpik, Lembit





Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Page, Richard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Paterson, Owen
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pickles, Eric
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Prior, David
Townend, John


Randall, John
Tredinnick, David


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Trend, Michael


Robathan, Andrew
Tyler, Paul


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Tyrie, Andrew


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Viggers, Peter


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Wafter, Robert


St Aubyn, Nick,
Waterson, Nigel


Sanders, Adrian
Webb, Steve


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wells, Bowen


Shepherd, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)
Widdecombe, Rt Miss Hon Ann


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Willetts, David


Soames, Nicholas
Willis, Phil


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Wilshire, David


Spicer, Sir Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Woodward, Shaun


Steen, Anthony
Yeo, Tim


Streeter, Gary
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stunell, Andrew



Syms, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and



Mrs. Jacqui Lait.

Question accordingly agreed to

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House deplores the previous Government's record of under-investment and disintegration in the transport network, its failure to tackle congestion as traffic rose by 75 per cent., the £1.2 billion investment backlog it left on the London Underground and its cut in road maintenance; commends the Government for producing the first Transport White Paper for 20 years, taking a far-sighted and more integrated approach than the previous administration, and linking together planning and transport policy more closely; and notes that the present Government has begun to tackle the inherited problems of under-investment, pollution and increasing traffic congestion, by a new radical integrated strategy, including an extra £1.8 billion for public transport and local transport management, winning back passengers to public transport, improving road maintenance, encouraging greater fuel efficiency, reducing pollution, and introducing the long-term policies needed to increase transport choice and improve Britain's transport system.

ESTIMATES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee),
That this House agrees with the Report [24th June] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Hill.]

Question agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON BROADCASTING

Ordered,
That Mr. Ivor Caplin be discharged from the Select Committee on Broadcasting and Mr. Kelvin Hopkins be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Hill.]

PETITION

Thorney Bypass

Mr. Malcolm Moss: It is my privilege, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, to present this petition on behalf of the residents of the village of Thorney in my constituency regarding their campaign to reinstate a bypass for their village. The bypass was in the previous Government's road programme but was removed from the programme by the incoming Labour Government.
The petitioners, therefore, request the House of Commons to urge the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to consider reinstating the A47 Thorney Bypass into the Government's road building programme with immediate effect.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Iraq

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]

Mr. George Galloway: I declare an interest, in that I am chairman of the Mariam appeal for cancer victims in Iraq, which has received support from the Governments of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
I begin by welcoming my hon. Friend the Minister of State to his new and important position in the Government—although I regret, as does the whole House, the circumstances that led to his appointment. The late Derek Fatchett and I had many spectacular clashes on this and related subjects, but I always respected him greatly, and he is sorely missed.
I shall start by telling the Minister what I am not going to talk about. The character of the Iraqi regime has been effectively carpet bombed on many occasions by hon. Members throughout the House. In the 15 minutes available to me, I do not intend to add to the many statements, speeches and interventions on the subject that I have made over the years. I hope that my hon. Friend will take them as read. However, I note that paragraph 14 of United Nations Security Council resolution 687 demands the establishment of a middle east free of weapons of mass destruction. I support that goal and call for the Iraqi regime to forswear such weapons, as I call on Israel—which sits atop an easily verifiable mountain of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons—to forswear them also.
The House has of late been much occupied with the concepts of genocide and of mass graves. I want to take the Minister on a brief tour of that wasteland, which will require him to exercise only a little imagination. Imagine a mass grave into which 6,000 small children are laid every single month. Imagine that those months stretched into years—nine years—and imagine a mass grave in which more than 2 million people, mainly children, or the elderly, or the poorest, or the most ill, are laid one upon the other.
Imagine how mass such a grave would be. Imagine what a mountain 2 million dead people would constitute. Imagine what an ocean of blood is represented by those 2 million lost souls. Such a mountain, such an ocean, such a mass grave is not a figment of anyone's imagination: it is the reality of life and death under sanctions in Iraq.
That reality is testified to by a plethora of United Nations agencies—by the World Health Organisation, by the World Food Programme, by UNICEF and UNESCO, by the President of Finland, Martti Ahtisaari, who performed such service for the Government recently, by Dennis Halliday, the former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, by other high officials of the UN, and by other credible sources, such as The Lancet, the Harvard medical team and the delegation of Church of England bishops, recently returned from Iraq, who called the sanctions "ethically untenable".
No one is saying, of course, that those 2 million people were specially targeted, or that they were singled out for extermination. No one is saying that those dead people ever committed any offence against anyone. They could


hardly have done so, as most of them were small children. It is much, much worse than that. The killing has been wholly indiscriminate, except in one respect. Those people are dead for one reason only. They are—rather, they were—Iraqis. They had the misfortune to be born in Iraq at this time. I do not need to tell a man of my hon. Friend's legal background the name for the mass killing of people for no other reason than their race or ethnic origin.
It is no longer asserted—it was once—that we are exaggerating. The Security Council, in its recent report, said that it was reporting
in the context of increasing concern among security council members over the humanitarian situation in Iraq.
The Security Council added that
the gravity of the humanitarian situation of the Iraqi people is indisputable and cannot be overstated.
In his recent and turbulent debut before the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, the Minister said that the Government were
looking for a way out of the stalemate
on Iraq, and talked of the "grave humanitarian situation". I genuinely consider it progress that we can agree about the gravity of the situation.
Can we also agree—for it is germane to the future as well as important to the history books—that what I have said in the House to more than one Minister, that the United Nations Special Commission inspectorate was riddled with spies, turned out to be true? After all, we have had the testimony of Scott Ritter, the deputy to Richard Butler, who headed UNSCOM. We have had the ground-breaking journalism of The New York Times and the Boston Globe. Most important of all, this week, we had an admission by Kofi Annan, no less, that UNSCOM inspectors were spying for the American intelligence agencies during their time in Iraq.
As the Minister knows, there is mounting international concern about the cancer epidemic in Iraq, and about the rapidly multiplying number of babies being born with deformities. My hon. Friend may have seen the recent cover story in Tribune, or he may have read Maggie O'Kane, whose reportage from Kosovo has been favourably commented on by the Government. In The Guardian, she quoted a doctor from one hospital, Dr. Zenad Mohammed, thus:
In August 1998, we had three babies born with no head, in September, we had six with no heads, in October, one with no head and four with big heads and four with deformed limbs or other types of deformities.
There has been a tenfold increase in the number of cancer cases in Iraq over the past nine years, at the same time as there has been a catastrophic decline in the capacity of the Iraqi health service to cope with it. The number of children born with the conditions hare lip or cleft palate has tripled. As a father, the Minister will be able to imagine the horror of that.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Former Taoiseach Albert Reynolds and I saw exactly those conditions in December 1998. My hon. Friend does not exaggerate.

Mr. Galloway: I do not have to imagine the horror. Like my hon. Friend, I have seen it with my own eyes, and I have heard the cries of parents.
Please do not tell me that food and medicines are not covered by the sanctions. The Minister and I both know that that is only partly true and that, in so far as it is true, it is misleading. If we subject a country to the tightest of mediaeval-style sieges, bankrupt its economy and freeze its international assets, how much food and medicine can it buy? If we define food and medicines so that vitamins and additives are not foods, so that insulin or intravenous fluid are not medicine and so that everything from syringes to diagnostic equipment is subject to endless delay and subversion by the sanctions committee in New York, what will the effect be on the health of the people?
What is the point of allowing diarrhoea, typhoid and cholera medicines while forbidding the equipment to repair the water and sanitation systems? The collapse of those systems led to the epidemic of water-borne disease in the first place. If the Minister says that members of the Iraqi regime are not hungry and that their children are not suffering, he will merely make my point. The sanctions are not harming the Iraqi regime, which is stronger than it was when sanctions began. The sanctions are laying waste the innocent Iraqi population.
What is the point of doubling, doubling and doubling again the upper limits of the oil-for-food quotas, when the Government know that Iraq can only dream of pumping that amount of oil, given the degradation of the oil extraction and distribution system, when we ban under sanctions the wherewithal to upgrade it and when oil prices, although firming, are still historically low?
Please do not tell me that there are stockpiles of undistributed medicines in Iraqi warehouses. Read the United Nations Security Council's own report on page 9 about the deterioration of warehousing; the lack of handling equipment; communication and transport difficulties; and the lack of tools. Read the World Health Organisation's study, which proves that Iraq's warehouses are operating at less than 20 per cent. of previous capacity.
Please do not tell me that the Iraqi health service is importing frivolous or unnecessary equipment as, sadly, some of our colleagues have been misled into doing—like the canard about the liposuction equipment, when it was falsely implied in this place that it was being imported for the prettification of the wives of members of the regime. That was a deliberate piece of disinformation. I have followed that equipment, which is used as such equipment is used here—in surgery on women suffering from breast cancer and undergoing mastectomies; in surgery on patients suffering from severe burns; and on patients who are having tumours removed and whose own lipid must be moved from one part of the body to another.
If the Minister wants to end the stalemate with Iraq, it really is time to turn down the rhetoric of demonisation which, as he found at the CAABU meeting, is doing our reputation among the Arab peoples no good at all.
I have some questions for the Minister. If he cannot answer them now, I hope that he will do so in writing in due course. My hon. Friend said at the CAABU meeting that "it is nonsense" to suggest that Britain would like to see the break-up of Iraq and that
Preserving the territorial integrity of Iraq is a fundamental part of our policy".
As President Clinton might say, "It all depends what you mean by 'is'".
After all, as will be seen increasingly in Yugoslavia, if one pursues policies that objectively contribute to the break-up of a sovereign territory, whatever one's


protestations, the country will still be broken up. What else is the solely United States-United Kingdom policy of daily bombardment of the so-called no-fly zones, which have no United Nations Security Council authority, if it is not a contribution to the break-up of Iraq and an attack on its territorial integrity?
Lest hon. Members are misled by the relative media blackout on those bombardments, it is worth pointing out that Britain and America have dropped more bombs on Iraq since Desert Fox than we did during that massive operation and that the targets have included shepherds and their sheep, schools, hospitals, oil installations and oil storage tanks, civilian houses and the civilian families living in them.
What else but a contribution to disintegration is the constant use of our territory by American officials and exiled Iraqi opposition groups to plan terrorist operations in the towns and cities of Iraq? I can give the Minister chapter and verse about those meetings—who attended them and what they were discussing.
Does my hon. Friend know that those meetings contravene our law, which was rushed through the House last summer, whereby section 5 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, makes it an offence to conspire on British soil to cause explosions, murder and other terrorist acts outside the United Kingdom? I should know, for I single-handedly blocked that law when it was first introduced in the House during the tenure of the previous Administration.
The Minister has a tiger by the tail with those organisations. What else but the break-up of Iraq is sought by the armed Kurdish factions, when they are not murdering each other? What else but the break-up of Iraq is sought by the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution, the army of fanatical Shias who wish to set up a pro-Iranian fundamentalist theocracy, if necessary in the south of Iraq? Or does the Minister believe that Iraq can be governed at the centre by Kurdish parties or by radical Shi'ism? What do Iraq's Sunni neighbours—some of our oldest and closest friends—think about that idea? Have we learned nothing from our sponsorship of those other holy warriors, Mr. bin Laden and his Afghan mujaheddin?
Finally, I turn to the recently announced British initiative in the Security Council and express the hope that the Minister can persuade me otherwise than that that is just another twist in perfidious Albion's policy towards Iraq, which intends to find another means of prolonging the agony. I hope that the Minister is not offended when I say that I cannot understand why we cannot support the French initiative, launched by our sister party—a fraternal Government and European ally. That initiative already has the support of a majority of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Our initiative only has the support of the USA—perhaps predictably. Will the Minister tell us what is wrong with the French draft? He well knows that it has the capacity to break the stalemate, while our draft—as he knows equally well—does not have that capacity, and has been rejected out of hand.
My hon. Friend the Minister has answered a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen). Let me contradict that answer. During the past 48 hours, Tariq Aziz said that

the French draft has real possibilities for the negotiation of a way out of that stalemate. That is contrary to the parliamentary answer that was released today. On the face of it, the British draft is worse than the existing governing resolution 687. Under resolution 687, the sanctions will be lifted in circumstances in which, in the British draft, they would only be suspended. Anyone who saw the US Government's treacherous betrayal of the recent Libyan deal, when they said that, notwithstanding the recent breakthrough, they would not lift their sanctions, will realise how that was regarded in the Arab world.
The draft imposes obligations on Iraq that were not even present in resolution 687, although it was, in effect, a draconian surrender treaty. Why? The burden of proof placed on Iraq in relation to weapons is more onerous than 687; in essence, it formalises what had, hitherto, been only the practice of requiring Iraq to prove a negative. Why? The British draft includes that hoary old myth—beloved of the "Missing in Action" Indo-China conspiracy theorists—the "Kuwaiti hostages". I have the internal discussion document in which the Government decided to change that formulation from prisoners of war because of the greater "emotional power" of the word hostages. However, whatever they are called, the Minister knows that Iraq says that it does not have them and that unknown soldiers die in every war. Again, the Minister is asking Iraq to prove a negative.
The British draft requires the "disclosure of information" rather than only the destruction of weapons, again knowing that that process can be strung out indefinitely, and that it will still leave us embroiled in the very stalemate that the Minister says he wants to break. Time does not allow me to probe this matter more deeply, but I hope that the Minister will consider this debate to be the start of a dialogue on those questions rather than the finish.
In conclusion, it is often sneered—sotto voce—that France is taking a more constructive role in the stalemate in order to further its national interest. Apart from the fact that that is a strange accusation—what are Governments for but to further their national interests?—and that it cannot be doubted that we have sacrificed mightily our own once pre-eminent position in Iraq, the Minister must know that Madeleine Albright was wrong, wrong, wrong when she said to Lesley Stahl on US television that all those dead Iraqi children constituted "a price worth paying". Any ethical dimension to our foreign policy requires us radically to think again.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) has spoken at length, and with his usual passion, on the UN sanctions regime against Iraq. May I make it clear to him and to the House that the Government would be pleased to see sanctions lifted? However, as we all know, Iraq has so far made it impossible for that to happen.
To understand why sanctions are still in place today, we need to consider why they were originally imposed. Sanctions were imposed in response to Iraq's illegal and outrageous invasion of Kuwait. At the end of the Gulf war in 1991, Iraq accepted the terms of UN Security Council resolution 687—the ceasefire resolution. That resolution, and others implementing it, laid down obligations on Iraq


relating to a number of matters. They included the obligation to accept the destruction of its weapons of mass destruction under international supervision; to submit full details of locations, amounts and types of weaponry; to undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire weapons of mass destruction in the future; and to co-operate with UNSCOM in carrying out those obligations.
That same resolution also set out the circumstances in which the Security Council would lift the sanctions regime. It provides that sanctions will be lifted following compliance by Iraq with its obligations relating to weapons of mass destruction and following review by the Security Council of Iraq's policies and practices, including its implementation of all relevant resolutions. Progress is entirely in Iraq's hands, but Iraq has persistently shirked its responsibilities and refused to comply with the very obligations it formally accepted under resolution 687. Perhaps, after eight years, it is easy to overlook the seriousness of those obligations and Iraq's failure to even come close to meeting them. Let me however remind the House of Iraq's appalling record.
On disarmament, the weapons inspectors were faced with persistent evasion, obstruction and mendacity on the part of Iraq. Iraq failed to provide an even remotely credible account of its biological weapons programme, and it failed to tell the truth about the production and weaponisation of the nerve agent VX. That is not a trivial debating point: VX causes death within minutes through nervous system disruption leading to respiratory failure—one drop of VX can kill.
I pay tribute to the weapons inspectors for their huge achievements in the face of Iraqi obduracy, but as the UN expert disarmament panel confirmed earlier this year, serious gaps still remain, especially in Iraq's declarations on chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles. Those are potentially horrific capabilities that threaten the security of the entire region. Iraq has already used chemical weapons extensively against Iran and against its own Kurdish civilians, at Halabja, in March 1998, attacking them with mustard gas and the nerve agent Tabun and killing thousands in the process.
Nor should we forget that more than 600 Kuwaitis and others detained by Iraq during the Gulf war are still unaccounted for. That represents about 0.1 per cent. of the Kuwaiti population: to us, the equivalent would be about 50,000 British citizens unaccounted for. Those are not "unknown soldiers", to use my hon. Friend's phrase. Almost all the Kuwaiti missing are civilians, some women and some elderly. To date, Iraq has provided sufficient information to close only three cases. Meanwhile, the families are left to suffer and grieve, not knowing the fate of their loved ones at the hands of the Iraqi regime.
My hon. Friend is right to be concerned about the humanitarian situation in Iraq—the Government are also concerned, but we reject the propaganda that seeks to hold the UN sanctions regime to blame. Let me remind my hon. Friend once again that food, medicines and goods for essential civilian needs are not prohibited under sanctions. That means that Iraq can and does import, for example, food, medicines, bandages, pencils, ambulances, chemotherapy drugs, educational materials, medical journals and school desks. Claims that the United Nations, or the United Kingdom itself, blocks those goods are nonsense.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi regime continues to refuse donations of humanitarian aid from third countries. While the Iraqi Government seek to exploit their people's suffering for their own propaganda purposes, the international community does what it can to protect the Iraqi people. The UN first put forward proposals for a humanitarian programme—the prototype for today's oil-for-food programme—in 1991. Iraq rejected them, despite complaints of severe humanitarian need. Faced with huge international pressure, Iraq eventually agreed to the oil-for-food programme in May 1996, but the start of the programme was delayed by seven months, until December 1996, while Iraq haggled over the terms of implementation.
Under the programme, Iraq is currently permitted to sell $5.3 billion worth of oil every six months to fund the purchase of humanitarian goods. In addition to the food and medicine I mentioned earlier, Iraq is also allowed to import spare parts, equipment and materials for use in the water and sanitation, education, agricultural and demining sectors. Subsequent resolutions also expanded the humanitarian programme to allow a certain amount of repair to the Iraqi civilian infrastructure and some upgrading of Iraq's oil infrastructure.
According to the most recent UN report on the implementation of oil for food, the UN humanitarian programme is making a real difference to the humanitarian situation in Iraq. However, for the Iraqi people to get the most out of the programme, the Iraqi Government must also play their part. Once again, Baghdad has refused to engage properly with the UN. Despite constant encouragement from the UN, the Government of Iraq refuse to make any efforts to prioritise properly what is purchased for the humanitarian programme, or to target the programme on the most vulnerable.
The UN special rapporteur on human rights in Iraq, Max van der Stoel, expressed concern in his February report that Iraq had not yet concluded contracts to the full value of available resources for the purchase of high protein biscuits or therapeutic milk. That was reinforced in April by a UN spokesman who said that Iraq was not ordering enough food for its malnourished children and pregnant women. Since late November, Iraq has submitted only two contracts for food, worth only $3 million, although it had been allocated $16 million for that purpose.
The UN special rapporteur further observed continuing problems with Iraqi distribution of goods. The available resources were not being channelled to the people in the southern governorates who were the worst off and in the greatest need. According to the latest UN reports, approximately £300 million worth of medical goods—more than half of all the medicines delivered to Iraq since the oil-for-food programme began in 1996—is still in warehouses awaiting distribution.
It is noticeable that oil for food has had a substantially greater impact on the humanitarian situation in northern Iraq where the Iraqi regime has no involvement in the implementation of the programme. In the north, for example, 92 per cent. of medical equipment procured by the United Nations agencies since the start of the programme has been distributed. According to the latest UN reports, general malnutrition there is decreasing.
The suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of the tactics of the Iraqi Government contrasts sharply with the wealth and luxury that is enjoyed by Saddam Hussein and his regime. Forbes magazine recently estimated Saddam's net worth at some $6 billion, ranking him the sixth richest head of state in the world. Such wealth derives from years of exploitation, and lately from smuggling large quantities of oil products out of the country for illegal sale. Needless to say, the proceeds of those sales go straight to members of the regime, rather than to the people who need them most—hence our efforts to crack down on the trade. Instead of spending its money on humanitarian goods, the regime imports vast quantities of whisky and cigarettes—since 1 January, more than 5,000 cases of whisky and more than 53,000 cartons of cigarettes have been delivered to Iraq.
As well as our efforts at the UN to improve the humanitarian situation in Iraq, since 1991 we have donated around £100 million in aid—bilaterally and via the EU—making us one of the largest donors. Our current programme focuses on projects in water and sanitation, hospital rehabilitation, village rehabilitation, assistance to vulnerable groups and demining.
However, we also believe that it is in the interests of the UN, the Iraqi people and the rest of the middle east that Iraq make real progress towards compliance so that sanctions can be lifted. We have therefore been working in the Security Council to make that goal a real possibility.
In April, we and the Netherlands circulated a draft Security Council resolution, based on the findings of the three expert panels established by the council in January to consider disarmament and humanitarian and Kuwaiti issues. Our aim is that that draft will provide a basis for the Security Council to re-engage with Iraq and, if Iraq chooses, provide a way out of the present stalemate.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Will my hon. Friend explain what is in it for Iraq if it accepts the United Kingdom resolution at the United Nations? From Iraq's perspective, the lifting of sanctions has been

blocked repeatedly by the United States and the UK—and presumably it will continue to be blocked. Iraq has fought a war against what it views as an intrusive UNSCOM inspections regime, so why should the Iraqis allow it back? Is the UK's measure not just a spoiling motion designed to continue the present hostilities?

Mr. Hoon: That is not correct. Sanctions have not been lifted, because the Iraqi regime has not accepted the terms of the resolution. I explained that at the start of my speech. That is why the resolution was made and why the obligations placed upon Iraq. That would remain the case if the resolution that has been co-sponsored by the UK and the Netherlands were eventually accepted in the Security Council. The reality is that those obligations are on Iraq and they arise out of the invasion of Kuwait and the use and stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction.
The lifting of sanctions has been blocked because Iraq has refused consistently to comply with UN resolutions. We clearly hope that the resolution will be agreed in the UN, and we hope ultimately that Iraq will accept its terms. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin that his description of the response to that resolution in the Security Council simply is not borne out by the facts. Several member states have already said that they share our view. They include Argentina, Brazil, Slovenia and, most importantly for the purposes of my hon. Friend's argument, Bahrain, which is the Arab representative on the Security Council. All have announced their co-sponsorship of the UK-Netherlands draft resolution.
I point out to my hon. Friends that the draft reminds Iraq of what it needs to do. It imposes no new demands on Iraq, and it addresses the call for the United Nations to do more about the humanitarian situation. It is a reminder that Iraq can enable progress to be made on lifting sanctions whenever it chooses to change its approach. If it rejects that opportunity again, Baghdad's priorities will be clearer than ever. It is open to Iraq to have sanctions lifted whenever it chooses to do so; it simply has to accept its obligations in the United Nations.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.